Jobs and jail might not keep young men out of crime, but how about therapy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/15/jobs-and-jail-might-not-keep-young-men-out-of-crime-but-how-about-therapy/ <comment><USER2> > Most solutions you've heard of probably boil down to one of two things: jobs > or jail. Unfortunately, there's not much evidence that either do much good. > In fact, some of the policing and punishment could be making things worse.

What? What evidence is that? The article provides no clues.

Considering it has been well shown that crime goes up as unemployment increases[0][1][2] they need to provide some kind of counter-evidence to that. Their argument that the link has "not much evidence" is just untrue. I could source this into the tens of papers if I wished. It is very well tested, and considered a "fact" in the Economics and Sociological spheres.

[0] [http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm](http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm) [1] [http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...](http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=parkplace) [2] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000026)

<comment><USER3> Odd because we didn't experience an increase in violent crime during the recession, in fact it continued to decrease. How many of those studies look at data after the great mid century crime wave had settled?

As for evidence that jobs and prison prevent recidivism (or crime in general), assuming they do to some degree, how much more or less effective are they than therapy?

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra In fact, "young" violent crime mostly a cultural issue.

There are a lot of countries in the world, for example in SE Asia, which are pretty poor but "super safe" \- poverty/joblessness doesn't lead to crime.

I would argue reasons for crime hotspots are:

\- Effective destruction of family.

\- Degenerative urban/dense environment.

\- No viable life prospects - regardless of what you do, statistically you're stuck at bottom.

It's not just that you are poor. Many people in the world are poor. It's that you're poorer than most people in the society, you don't really need to work to avoid starvation and if you do, it doesn't move your prospects.

</comment><comment><USER4> Unfortunately, incarceration's really the only punishment (outside of probation) that courts are allowed to give. I really think that we need to have a serious discussion about the difference between what society thinks is a bad person versus who is society really afraid of -- the people who we, as a society are truly afraid of should be incarcerated.

</comment><comment><USER5> Jobs do keep crime down. Crime rates have been correlated with economic performance.</comment>


Luna DNA Uses Blockchain to Share Genomic Data as a "Public Benefit" - <AUTHOR> https://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2018/01/22/luna-dna-uses-blockchain-to-share-genomic-data-as-a-public-benefit/ <comment><AUTHOR> _...encourage users to share their genomic information with scientists by offering them "Luna Coins," the company's own version of digital currency...Luna DNA does not provide genome sequencing services. Rather, users would contribute their DNA sequencing from providers such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com._</comment>


The 313 Apple patents that list Steven P. Jobs among the group of inventors - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html <comment><USER2> Steve Jobs was certainly loved by the HN crowd if _this_ gets a positive reaction.

<comment><USER3> I might be wrong about this but I think the people of HN (and people in general?) have better opinions of hardware patents than software patents.

<comment><USER4> Besides, almost all of these patents seem to protect the ornamental design rather than the utility. Most people here don't object to patenting the design of cases and the like.

<comment><USER5> Though I'm now beginning to wonder. Could someone copyright the design of cases and sue for copyright infringement/plagiarism? Or would that open up an even worse can of worms?

<comment><USER6> That's exactly what's happening between Apple and Samsung in Europe and elsewhere, right now. Apple complains that the Galaxy tablet is physically too similar to the iPad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They are all mostly ornamental design patents?

The first one I randomly looked at was Apple TV. It lists 14 people for an ornamental design for a square media player.

Another is how to package an iPod in a box? Seems unnecessary to patent all these things.

<comment><USER8> I don't know enough about patents, but Jobs was definitely obsessed with the "out of the box" experience and wanted Apple products to be unlike anyone else's products in that regard.

I remember having a 12" Powerbook delivered to my Windows-using office - everyone gathered round to look at the packaging - and then were amazed when the computer was up and running, and connected to the internet, within two minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why is packaging covered by patents instead of trademark or copyright? It's not like a slight alteration to the inserts in a box is unique innovation. I honestly don't understand how patents are the right thing to apply to packaging. What am I missing?

<comment><USER10> A trademark protects a mark that would cause confusion about the source of a product if it was used by another person/company. That is, it would protect any branding on the package, rather than the design of the package itself.

There is a certain degree of overlap with copyright, but: (1) for copyright to be infringed, the infringing item has to be a copy of the original; and (2) the subject of a design patent must have a certain degree of functionality and not be purely aesthetic (as copyright can be). A design patent can be infringed by a substantially similar design, rather than an exact copy.

Design patents are very different to utility patents. In the examples here, it's purely the ornamental design applied to packaging that's being protected, not the functional aspects of the packaging itself.

<comment><USER9> Right, thank you. It sounds like it waters down the lay concept of patents, which is "I came up with something truly new and original", and should more like copyright in that it's more about preventing plagiarism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> FTA: there are 317 patents

</comment><comment><USER12> The patent issues are the one thing that tarnish his image, in my mind. Let's just forget about that.</comment>


Deadly shootings are on the rise again in the U.S., CDC data show - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gun-deaths-rising-20181109-story.html <comment><USER2> What does that say about all of the additional gun restrictions and laws passed recently?

<comment><USER3> Nothing, in and of itself. Like most social problems, more than one variable affects gun violence.</comment></comment>


On Disbelieving Atrocities (1944) - <AUTHOR> https://pastebin.com/zpk4LP1s? <comment><USER2> The trouble with this - I can sympathize with the frustration of watching atrocities happening in your homeland and not being able to get people in another country far away to care. But I can also sympathize with the ordinary people in these countries far away wanting to live their lives and not wallow in every tragedy that happens around the world.

Because there's quite a lot of things happening all the time, even now, that at least the people involved would consider terrible atrocities. Have you even read about what the Burmese have been doing to the Rohingya? How about the new Chinese "Re-Education Camps" for Muslims there? Or what ISIS-associated factions are doing in Syria?

<comment><USER3> Yes to all, and I think it's our responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of them. What's the point of having the right to vote and having people represent us if we're not aware of what they should be dealing with wrt foreign policy, say? If everyone buries their head in the sand or only considers domestic issues, we don't really have democracy. It becomes a charade that helps us feel reassured that we have freedom. Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace. We can't and shouldn't look away from atrocities at home or abroad. It's a global world, and we need to be able to direct the politicians who work for us.

<comment><USER4> That just seems to be redefining the word "democracy" so that it produces the outcomes you desire. I don't think that's helpful. It is important to realize that democratic process and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.

<comment><USER5> Insofar those unjust outcomes undermine democracy itself, they're opposed to democracy. Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process", and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly?

As opposed to non-democracies, or to citizens who don't care about atrocities elsewhere? Those also "can lead to bad outcomes", and when you have something on both sides of the equation it's usually helpful to ignore it, and focus on the bits that aren't on both sides -- instead of ignoring anything _but_ what is on both sides.

> As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all > live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and spectator, is at stake.

\-- Hannah Arendt

<comment><USER4> > Notice how changed "democracy" to "democratic process"

Fine: It is important to realize that democracy and following the will of people can result in bad and unjust outcomes.

There, doesn't make a difference.

> and how saying "democracy can result in bad and unjust outcomes" would have > raised the question, as opposed to what, exactly [...]

I haven't got a slightest idea what you're saying. You don't have to sell me on democracy, I'm already sold. You also don't have to sell me on caring about people elsewhere, I'm sold there too.

But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem unethical as that is simply useless for discussion.

<comment><USER5> The responsibility as democratic citizens to be aware of atrocities elsewhere, because the polticians we elect deal with foreign countries in which they take place, isn't cherry picking a definition. That's directly related to what democracy _is_. They also said

> Real freedom, and real democracy, come from an educated and aware populace

Would you disagree with that? If not, would you agree that part of being educated and aware is being not myopic and navel gazing, and caring about genocide elsewhere? If so, what are you even arguing?

If not, how can one be educated and aware, yet so shortsighted and selfish? Do you know an example of a person you would consider educated and aware, who shrugs off atrocities elsewhere?

> But you shouldn't define democracy to simply exclude outcomes you deem > unethical

Who did though? Someone said "real democracy" and you don't even ask them what they mean with that. While I don't know what they meant with "real democracy", if I had used those words in that context, I would have meant that you can't really have values such as free speech, freedom of assembly, right to due process -- in spirit, in daily practice, in the socialization and character of people, not just on paper -- and then just turn them off when people outside of your jurisdiction get brutalized, and not care at all. It's like I would say "a real feminist" doesn't just care about their own jurisdiction, but also about the plight of women in third world countries, and so on.

With democracy especially, this kind of half-assedness then comes back to bite us, too. I don't want to derail, but I'll just say "arms exports, allies who are kind of assholes, or in turn allied with assholes, refugee crisis".... not to mention global warming and the projected hundreds of millions of refugees that warming oceans could, probably will lead to. Caring about that stuff and about democracy elsewhere does benefit me, too, "in a globalized world". Just like helping another person can help me in my own life, since that life takes place in a world wherein that other person lives as well.

> If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am > 'I'? And if not now, when?

\-- Hillel the Elder

That guy probably didn't have "democracy" in mind, but still. If I believe in democratic ideals, human rights, and all that, I might be cool with, say, a monarchy that's not a tyranny, if people elsewhere want that, fine... but I MUST be against people just being murdered. I certainly must be against my own government being in bed with murderers. Otherwise, I'm not a "real" democrat, I'm not "really" for the human rights I myself enjoy, but just paying lip service.

<comment><USER6> I have nothing great to add, other than I found that post excellent and meritorious. I wish more people felt and thought like you do

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I believe in spiral nebulae, can see them in a telescope and express their distance in figures; but they have a lower degree of reality for me than the inkpot on my table. Distance in space and time degrades intensity of awareness. So does magnitude. Seventeen is a figure which I know intimately like a friend; fifty billions is just a sound. A dog run over by a car upsets our emotional balance and digestion; three million Jews killed in Poland cause but a moderate uneasiness. Statistics don't bleed; it is the detail which counts. We are unable to embrace the total process with our awareness; we can only focus on little lumps of reality.

</comment><comment><USER8> As sentient animals emerging from nature I think the ability to look away from atrocity understandable. It permeates nature to its core. Predation, disease, decay, and death are everywhere outside of our human distraction bubble.

What's more interesting to me than the ability to look away is that we've developed a sense of urgency to change that. Not just for ourselves, but for other humans and animals around us. In general, as a species, we've moved significantly in the right direction towards reducing the atrocity.

</comment><comment><USER9> >> _Our awareness seems to shrink in direct ratio as communications expand; the world is open to us as never before, and we walk about as prisoners, each in his private portable cage._

This seems to be an evergreen phenomenon. The world today is more open and connected than it was in 1944, but with that openness has come an much greater capacity to live in a walled garden of our own making.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is the key quote: "For as long as there are people on the road and victims in the thicket, divided by dream barriers, this will remain a phoney civilisation."

Of course, people throw up their hands in helplessness. Or, for some, there is helpless guilt. But it needn't be so. It was Adelle Davis who once wrote: "It is part of my creed — of my religion if you like — that when you have the ability to help your fellow man, that ability ceases to be merely an ability and becomes a responsibility."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> At first nobody believed because there really was no concrete evidence. This was changed by Witold Pilecki:

> _During World War II, Pilecki volunteered for a Polish resistance operation > that involved being imprisoned in the Auschwitz concentration camp in order > to gather intelligence and later escape. While in the camp, he organized a > resistance movement and informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany 's > Auschwitz atrocities as early as 1941. He escaped from the camp in 1943 > after nearly 2½ years of imprisonment._

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

By 1944 the evidence was massive, yet Arthur Koestler still needed to write this piece.

<comment><USER11> Pilecki was one tough dude. I always thought he got in, looked around and quickly left. But his biography describes how he participated in camp life for more than 2 years like other prisoners and with the same risk to his life.

This guy was a true hero.

<comment><AUTHOR> (this is based on chats with guides in Auschwitz)

Apparently survival inside the camp for this long was only possible if you knew how to climb the hierarchy, and Pilecki did it well. For example - on the day he (and a few of his friends) fled they were assigned to a job in a bakery. A job in a bakery is one of the best jobs you could possibly get there, as you can steal enough food to not die of starvation.

<comment><USER11> True. He was very smart and built up a network that kept him alive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sometimes "atrocities" should be disbelieved, though.

Consider the most recent Syrian "nerve gas attacks". Politicians said they were "sure", launched airstrikes, pulled the remaining diplomats from the region. Then the only actually trustworthy body, OPCW, released the report in which it said, I quote: "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected" (don't believe me? Google the exact quote). If sarin were actually used, those degradation products would be at detectable levels for many years.

Chlorine residue _was_ found, but the position of the bodies on the scene is inconsistent with chlorine poisoning, suggesting that the bodies might have been moved to suggest they died of a nerve agent (i.e. fell to the ground where they stood, rather than ran to the windows gasping for air). The delivery mechanism is also unclear, there are undamaged chlorine cylinders found at the scene, suggesting that it wasn't launched from a distance.

So we've been blatantly lied to by politicians and the press yet again in order to manufacture consent. This was mostly ignored by the public. This is not the first time this has been done, either. See e.g. Iraq "WMDs", and the current darling of the liberal establishment, Robert Mueller, deliberately lying to Congress: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO- kuOGTQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ). I say "deliberately" because no "evidence" could have been presented to him, because none existed.

</comment><comment><USER13> Atrocities happen because the systems encompassing us are not perfect. Problems arise because we humans decide to live under the imperfect systems; vastly different by where on earth you happen to be. Metaphorically it's like when you travel, you're navigating into a new realm and where the game rules are completely rewritten for whatever the outcome will be and with whatever consequences. My intuition thinks this is a problem. The differences keep the world beautiful but separate us fundamentally in how things are handled.

I've been a victim of of a situation, that would not have happened if I had not been where I was and had been in a different country. I know it was an atrocity and in 100 years I could easily see people not believing it had happened & even today I've seen doubts.

Individuals are prone to question every possible situation with vastly different personal ideas. It's how great things come about. Disbelieving is also a result for some individuals and maybe it's dangerous but it's part of the equation. My assumption is energy should be focused towards making the systems around the globe more similar with trying to keep culture intact. Although the world may be safer for everyone without culture and just one nationality.

Lastly I think we have people disbelieving atrocities because compassion is piss poor compared to what we're capable of. People will focus only on themselves when the systems don't care about societies health (depending on where you live) and results in people being delusional or disbelieving what's in fact reality.

</comment><comment><USER14> From another great writer of the human condition ...

Musée des Beaux Arts W.H.Auden

      About suffering they were never wrong,
      The Old Masters; how well, they understood
      Its human position; how it takes place
      While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully
      along; ....

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Beaux_Arts_(poe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_des_Beaux_Arts_\(poem\))

</comment><comment><USER15> Crystal clear writing. With cogent argumentation. This is how you persuade. Parallels with contemporary climate deniers is stunning.

<comment><USER16> > Parallels with contemporary climate deniers is stunning.

You're right. I agree with you.

But–and I say this with all respect and no judgment–I think the insight here is not to point at one's perceived opponents and say, "Yes! This describes my experience with them perfectly!"; but to ask oneself who are the screamers in ones own life who get one's own glossy-eyed stare.

It is very difficult and often impossible to pop someone else's bubble, so we should all work hard on popping our own.

As for the average climate denier[0], I won't defend them, but I'll say this: They're wrong about the climate, but they're screaming about _something_.

[0]By which I mean those who are sincere and not well-funded, financially motivated deceivers.

Edit: Formatting.

<comment><USER17> > It is very difficult and often impossible to pop someone else's bubble, so > we should all work hard on popping our own.

Huh? they won't listen to reason, so I should do what, exactly?

<comment><USER5> I don't know, maybe pretend e.g. the Nazis were convinced of the errors of their ways -- rather than defeated first militarily, and then shamed socially.

I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and _enforce_ boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) fuck of continued organized existence of the human race. Deal with the mote in your own eye, just to shut Jesus up, and then get to work on the speck of dust in the eye of your neighbour. Turns out size doesn't matter, but what it blocks the view of, and that's one hell of a speck of dust.

The mote probably never meant shit in comparison but do it anyway, get rid of attack surface for people who are looking for excuses to not confront anyone in earnest. As if just knowing about Auschwitz was possible in a vacuum, without making oneself an enemy of the Nazis. They are obedient now, they will fall in line when you achieve critical mass with people who are worth their salt. So completely forget them until they do better, if they ever do. Don't put more stock in them than they themselves did. Focus on those who are not just a drain of resources, but that pollinate and challenge you in a way that leaves you and them better.

And notice the irony of you being downvoted without reply, instead of that downvoter instead criticizing something about themselves. You're supposed to not "think you're better than others", or consider your concerns more important than theirs -- but people will absolutely consider themselves better than you for allegedly not considering themselves better as others. But that's not for them to realize, I guess.

<comment><USER18> > I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and enforce > boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) > fuck of continued organized existence of the human race.

Dumb question here: why should I give a fuck about literally _anything_ that happens after I die?

<comment><USER19> Because people (or even projects) you love may outlive you? It can provide immediate visceral satisfaction to try to help boost them even if you won't see the benefits. Children are a good example of this, but there are many others (legacies, societies, proteges, lovers).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >> On Disbelieving Atrocities

>> Arthur Koestler (Jan. 1944)

I wondered if the author is _the_ Arthur Koestler, but Wikipedia tells me he was born in 1905, so if I read the following sentence correctly (i.e. meaning that the writer is 62 at the time of writing, in 1944), then the piece was written by another author of the same name, because the best-known Arthur Koestler was 39 in 1944:

>> "I know" that, the average statistical age being about 65, I may reasonably expect to live no more than another 2.7 years, (...)

And yet, a cursory search on the internet suggests the well-known Arthur Koestler was, indeed the writer of the piece. What gives?

<comment><USER21> I believe the . is a typo, and it's 27 years. That also lines up with the date he gives for his death, in 1970.

<comment><USER22> Probably an OCR glitch even, as the text has some OCR cliches in it:

> and regard these as black-and-white altematives.

Related: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18374359](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18374359)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > These limitations of awareness account for the limitations of enlightenment > by propaganda. People go to cinemas, they see films of Nazi tortures, of > mass-shootings, of underground conspiracy and self-sacrifice. They sigh, > they shake their heads, some have a good cry. But they do not connect it > with the realities of their normal plane of existence.

translated from Hannah Arendt in "Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft":

> _The movies which the Allies showed in Germany and other countries after the > war was over, have proven that the characteristic of insanity and irreality > of the photographed events withstands all mere reportage. For the unbiased > viewer they are about as convincing as the photographs of mysterious > substances in spiritist seances. Common sense reacts to the atrocities of > Buchenwald or Auschwitz with the plausible argument: "What crimes have these > people committed, that this was done to them?" Or, in Germany and Austria > during the food shortages, the overpopulation and the general hatred: "Too > bad not more were murdered!" Or everywhere with head shaking, suspicious of > a particularly ineffective trick of propaganda._

> _Although the propaganda of truth doesn 't convince the normal "square" > citizen because of its monstrosity, it has a much more dangerous effect on > those who from their own fantasies know that they would be capable of doing > such a thing, and who are simply happy to believe in the reality of the > shown events. Suddenly it turns out that what human fantasy for millenia had > declared to be beyond human competence can be produced after all. Hell and > limbo, and even an inkling of their eternal duration, can be built, by > letting humans die forever, with the most modern methods of destruction and > healing. What these types, of whom there are more in any big city than we > are willing to believe, realize when they watch these movies or read those > articles, is that the power of man is greater than they dared to admit, and > that hellish fantasies can be realized without the sky falling down, or the > ground opening up._

Seeing how the book was originally written in English I'm sure the original is much better (but sadly I don't have it in English, yet). I hope it's at least somewhat understandable, but I still want to include the German from which I translated for completeness:

> _Die Filme, die die Allierten nach Kriegsende in Deutschland und im Ausland > liefen ließen, haben nur zu deutlich erwiesen, daß der Irrsinns- und > Irrealitätscharakter der photographierten Begebenheiten aller reinen > Reportage standhält. Für den unbefangenen Zuschauer kommt ihnen etwas soviel > Überzeugungskraft zu wie den Photographien mysteriöser Substanzen in > spiritistischen Sitzungen. Der gesunde Menschenverstand reagierte auf die > Greuel von Buchenwald oder Auschwitz mit dem plausiblen Argument: "Was > müssen die Leute nur angestellt haben, daß dies mit ihnen geschah?" Oder, in > Deutschland und Österreich inmitten der Hungersnot, der Überbevölkerung und > des allgemeinen Hasses: "Wie schade, dass man nicht mehr Juden vergast hat!" > Oder überall mit dem Kopfschütteln des Mißtrauens genen einen besonders > unwirksamen Propagandatrick._

> _Wenn die Propaganda der Wahrheit ihrer Ungeheuerlichkeit wegen den noch > normalen Spießbürger nicht überzeugt, so hat sie eine desto gefährlichere > Wirkung auf diejenigen, welche aus ihren eigenen Phantasiemöglichkeiten > wissen, daß sie so etwas tun könnten, und aus diesem Grunde nur zu froh > sind, an die Realität des Gezeigten zu glauben. Urplötzlich stellt sich > heraus, daß, was die menschliche Phantasie seit Jahrtausenden in ein Reich > jenseits menschlicher Kompetenz verbannt hat hatte, tatsächlich herstellbar > ist. Hölle und Fegefeuer und selbst ein Abglanz ihrer ewigen Dauer können > errichtet werden, indem man Menschen mit den modernsten Mitteln der > Destruktion und der Heilkunst unendlich lange sterben läßt. Was diesen > Typen, von denen es in jeder Großstadt sehr viel mehr gibt, als wir gerne > wahrhaben möchten, beim Anblick dieser Filme oder beim Lesen jener > Reportagen aufgeht, ist, daß die Macht des Menschen größer ist, als sie sich > einzugestehen wagten, und daß man höllische Phantasien realisieren kann, > ohne daß der Himmel einstürzt und die Erde sich auftut._

another bit from the article:

> I think one should imitate this example. Two minutes of this kind of > exercise per day, with closed eyes, after reading the morning paper, are at > present more necessary to us than physical jerks and breathing the Yogi way. > It might even be a substitute for going to church. For as long as there are > people on the road and victims in the thicket, divided by dream barriers, > this will remain a phoney civilisation.

Yes! I can't say anything other than "yes", really. Or "this, so much this".

> _Either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does._

\-- George Orwell

<comment><USER7> Thanks</comment></comment>


Make Something Users Care About - <AUTHOR> http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2010/02/with-apologies-to-kathy-sierra.html

<comment><USER2> That was hard to watch, the graphic below the video explained it all, minus his awkward stage performance.</comment>


I love Twitter, but it isn't a news source. Just ask Jeff Goldblum. - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/06/25/twitter-the-fastest-way-to-get-informed-or-misinformed/

<comment><USER2> Is it just me, or is this story completely asinine? Who expected hundreds of thousands of people babbling at each other to aggregate into a reliable news source? Nobody.

On the other hand, I get more reliable news from BNO over Twitter than I ever did from CNN. BNO had Michael Jackson something like 30 minutes before it hit the front page; it had Sanford before Talking Points Memo; it has consistently better international coverage than ABC or CNN.

Saying Twitter is a bad news source is like saying email is a bad news source.

<comment><USER3> It is asinine. I think the multitude of stories about twitter being a "bad news source" are mostly out of frustration after seeing CNN covering tweets rather than doing any real reporting. I think twitter definitely has its place in the news, but as something to supplement the story, not be the source entirely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Funnily enough, I was on IRC when someone announced that Michael Jackson had died, rather than on Twitter, and the first thing I did was to go to my Twitter client to see if anyone else had mentioned it. The fact that _everyone_ was talking about MJ dying confirmed that the IRC announcement was not a hoax, or at least not a hoax by the announcer.

After that, Twitter was neither more nor less useful than CNN, which waited until they had confirmations signed in triplicate before they announced that yes, MJ was actually dead.

On the other hand, Twitter was a lot more fun than CNN, with various bits of irreverence and word-plays on MJ songs popping up here and there on the Twitter-stream... something that traditional media would (rightly) never dare to do.

Death is funnier on Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER5> Twitter isn't a credible news source, but it is a source of news.

<comment><USER6> I consider it more a source of _hypotheses_ , especially regarding any topic of potential interest to pop culture.

Disclosure: I actually wait for next NPR news hour to see if anything of real importance (to me) happened. ...less distracting than a chronic monitoring of tweets :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> To be more specific: Twitter is a _data_ source. Data is not information; it possesses no metadata informing its credibility ("color".)

<comment><USER8> Actually, data are information. The way I understand the words is: information is simply any communication or part of a communication. Data specifically are units of information that are derived from measurements or calculations, and therefore are generally useful.

What Twitter is NOT is a source of FACTS.

<comment><USER7> I usually go with the semantic web definition: data are just nodes in the graph, raw blobs with no apparent meaning; information is what happens when you "grok" data, expanding and integrating it into edges in the graph. I suppose my data is your information, and my information is your fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How can we ask him? I heard he died.

</comment><comment><USER10> twitter is like email or instant messaging, its a method of communication, not a source.</comment>


Angular2: extract array element form http.get response - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35138756/angular2-extract-array-element-form-http-get-response <comment><AUTHOR> This problem has been bugging me.</comment>


Show HN: Badger.com is a brand new domain registrar (GoDaddy competitor) - <AUTHOR> https://www.badger.com/#register/hackernews

<comment><USER2> Original discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3397810>

Does HN find it acceptable to repost things like this? It's a slightly different format (link vs no link), but it seems rather quick to be reposting.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, you are right, it was rather too quick to repost—but hey that can happen when founder are enthusiastic about their product. And their were tons of redundant Godaddy SOPA posts—that can happen on a social news site, I am not angry about the repost, maybe next time they should think about a new hook but badger is a promising product with an awesome domain search—I tried it and I like it. So before snitching them try the product once.

We are all founders and if there is one who might be a bit too spammy, too pushy, too persisent, we flag, downvote him—we should hold together. Starting something, especially a domain registrar isn't easy (and there is a need!) and we should support every one of us.

Disclaimer: I've nothing to do with badger, I don't know them

<comment><USER2> The question was more of an open one, of what's seen as allowable and what's not. My post wasn't intended to be a snitch, it was more of a reference other posts/responses about the same service.

I for one didn't see a problem in the repost. The format is different (the other really only showed up under "ask", and this is on the main page), and badger said they removed the invite only, which is definitely a milestone on releasing a product. I'm glad they reposted without 'SOPA' in the title; I for one was starting to ignore that word on HN.

Congratulations to Badger for creating a new registrar. I'm sure there were a lot of hurdles to jump through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "How we're different" gives me a 404 JS alert.

 _edit:_ The GoDaddy SSL cert you're using is a little ironic.

<comment><USER5> First link I clicked on, got a JS "404" popup, immediately closed the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A domain registrar's primary focus on the homepage should be a big form with the ability to type in domains and check their availability. It's not clear that search bar is to find domains. There should be TLDs at the end of the form to make it clear.

</comment><comment><USER7> While I admire your enthusiasm, the last thing an experienced web developer wants is a "brand new" domain registrar. The primary aspect you want in your registrar is longevity, because transferring domains is a huge pain in the neck. GoDaddy gets business just by virtue of having been around for so long, thus indicating it's not going to be another disaster like RegisterFly.

Obviously everybody has to start somewhere, but if you're brand new, focus on increasing consumer confidence through things like service guarantees and offering long-term contracts.

<comment><AUTHOR> We have been using the term "brand new" as a way to show that we're trying to approach the domain industry a bit differently than our 5-10 year old competitors. I think the biggest example is that we've open sourced our javascript frontend (<http://github.com/badger/frontend>) which exclusively uses our API (<http://badger.github.com/>). We think the domain industry is ripe for disruption and we think we have the right team and ideas to execute.

As you pointed out though we don't have a proven track record. Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do about that. Service guarantees and long-term contracts might seem nice on the surface but wouldn't really change much if we went out of business. I believe the quote goes something like: "The only two things guaranteed in life are death and taxes. (Benjamin Franklin)"

That said, we're a startup in San Francisco with an office and employees and have been around for over a year. We previously were a domain reseller (rhinonames.com) but have spent the last six months becoming ICANN accredited and building badger.com. We think we can build the best registrar around and we're here to stay.

<comment><USER8> That's very enthusiastic and I applaud it, but could you perhaps provide some more substance beyond an open source frontend. How can we use the API? What benefits do you think exposing an API would provide? What are the capabilities of your API, etc.?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> good to see more competition. I agree with the other criticisms here, and would add there's nothing about pricing on the site anywhere I can find.

It seems badger is .com and .net only? promote that up front so I don't waste time.

I hope this wasn't put together solely as a "screw godaddy" anti-SOPA thing. I suspect it wasn't, as I'd imagine icann accreditation would take more than a few days, but the "godaddy competitor" in the title makes me think otherwise. Or maybe this is just good pr-timing?

</comment><comment><USER10> I appreciate your sentiment with this, and want to be supportive, but it takes more then landing page to be domain registrar. I think you should work on this some more before showing anything. See other comments on what to improve.

<comment><AUTHOR> We've been working on this non-stop for six months... it's not just a landing page. We are are a fully functional ICANN accredited registrar. We offer domain registration/transfers, DNS hosting, WHOIS privacy, email forwarding, url forwarding, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I look forward to seeing where this goes. ^_^

</comment><comment><USER12> All the domain registration thing aside, that's a blazing fast web design. Kudos to the developers!</comment>


Clojure Protocol Namespaces - <AUTHOR> http://matthewboston.com/blog/clojure-protocol-namespaces/

<comment><USER2> "Notice the use of dash in the :require but the use of underscore in the :import. This is because the :import is a Java import used for Java classes, and we must refer to our SchoolBus record as a Java class."

Just like how monads are burritos, apparently Clojure is a coffee cup with a hole in it - it's leaked Java all over the place. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> There is some leaky Java, and it can be painful at times.</comment></comment>


Watch 32 discordant metronomes achieve synchrony in a matter of minutes [video] - <AUTHOR> http://io9.com/5947112/watch-32-discordant-metronomes-achieve-synchrony-in-a-matter-of-minutes

<comment><USER2> Communism!</comment>


I just discovered major security flaws in my web store - <AUTHOR> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/5701/i-just-discovered-major-security-flaws-in-my-web-store <comment><USER2> I wish I was surprised. I bet the shipping is calculated via Javascript and people with Javascript turned off get free shipping too. Intro to CS courses don't think they have enough time to get into the details of what code runs where and who and what you can trust and what encryption really does and why "oh just use https" doesn't solve everything, but it's one of the most important topics that everyone exposed to a bit of programming should know and consider. If a rewrite proxy can give your customers free stuff, it's somehow at the same time both just unforgivable yet almost expected/par for the course. I wonder how many sql injection and cross site scripting holes are in the same site.

Obligatory please-educate-yourself link: Open Web Application Security Project top 10 list: [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Proje...](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Project)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a fairly common issue when people are integrating with third party payment providers:

\- [http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer...](http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=88180)

\- [https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/helpTab/Amazon- Simple-...](https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/helpTab/Amazon-Simple- Pay/Amazon-Simple-Pay-FAQ#malicious)

\- [http://letsearndollar.blogspot.com/2009/07/change-any- paypal...](http://letsearndollar.blogspot.com/2009/07/change-any-paypal-price- with-data.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> I hate when the top answers on stack exchange sites are suggestions to do something completely different (don't write your own web store). I wonder how that could be avoided. Should he have worded the question differently? Should there be separate upvotes for "answers question" and "useful information"?

<comment><USER5> On help groups, it has become common to address the XY problem: A user cannot solve problem X, but thinks that problem Y is equivalent and tries to solve that. The user can't solve Y either, and goes to ask for help on problem Y, without mentioning problem X.

Of course, this doesn't apply to this particular question, but I figured I'd explain why people do this.

<comment><USER6> Mmmm... I think it's more than that. It's been my experience that questioners don't always ask the right question. For example, consider the (not entirely) hypothetical "How do I implement drop-down menus?" What the person typically needs is some sort of navigable interface for a web site--but that's not what they ask for.

How is the root question uncovered? By asking questions. (Why do you need it? How far along is the project?)

The best solution answers both what they asked and what they should have asked.

The reason people do this (as you say) is that they sometimes have enough experience to suggest a different path altogether.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is HTTP header just a codeword for cookie? How does a website get the browser to send custom headers?

<comment><USER8> HTTP header is code for "POST data".

<comment><USER7> That makes sense. It was worth the negative karma to solve the mystery. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hmmm...is this a problem of someone who was hired to do the front and the backend? Why would freight and total price be calculated client-side, instead of the backend taking in quantity as input and then doing the calculation against the inventory db?

</comment><comment><USER8> Ahhhhhh... Someone is wrong on the Internet!

The card thing is really No Big Deal. It's actually a pretty smart integration with one shortcoming.

Whatever gateway they're using has some support for you maintaining control of the checkout experience while not actually receiving or transmitting card data --a great thing for PCI compliance. So the form is on an HTTPS page on the merchant's site, but instead of posting to the merchant's app, it posts directly to the gateway. The gateway communicates status with the merchant via a synchronous HTTP request or signed data in a redirect URL, and the merchant's software processes the transaction without ever seeing card data.

As the OP says, "they're using HTTPS"--yes, this makes _all_ the difference. The only reason the info appears to be clear text to him is that he's using Tamper Data, a browser extension that lets you play with your own POST data _before_ you send it over HTTP(S).

This is the Right Way to do it for a site that doesn't get some compelling advantage out of building the infrastructure necessary to be PCI compliant. Done this way, PCI compliance requires just the trivial SAQ A. The only problem with this is that either the gateway does not support (sadly, the most common case) or the developer did not implement signing the transaction details on the merchant side.

<comment><USER10> It's No Big Deal until someone orders $10,000 worth of merchandise, pays $1 for it, and it gets shipped to an empty house in a subdivision before someone notices.

Then it's a Really Big Fucking Deal Oh God How Will We Pay Rent.

<comment><USER11> So admittedly I've only ever dealt with Paypal as a third party taking payment (as opposed to a few other systems where my server talked directly to the payment gateway).

One thing I noticed that the OP did not mention was whether or not the website's own 'transaction ID' was part of the transaction details being sent and / or whether or not the third party site returns a transaction ID themselves. At least with Paypal, the client makes the payment then they are returned to the original site with a 'receipt' transaction ID and it is then up to the original site to take that receipt number and do their own look up, back to Paypal, to ensure that the amount paid was actually the amount it wanted to be paid...

If that is happening with the OP's site, then I don't think there's anything stupid going on (or, at least, it's relatively simple to resolve).

<comment><USER8> I used a lot of systems. AFAIK, they all give some way for you to set your own transaction ID, and they all provide you with a gateway transaction ID, too. A good system will have a backend process to reconcile records based on one of these and would of course flag anything where the dollars don't match. This is the (inadequately explained) basis of my contention that the price editing is not a big deal. Of course, it could be a big deal if they botched a lot of other things, but by itself it doesn't mean there's an actual serious problem.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TalkSpot Connect: Best New Blogging App - <AUTHOR> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/talkspot-connect/id444526277?mt=8

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems easy to use and gets the job done.</comment>


Google Robot Police Solve LA Homeless Problems - <AUTHOR> https://pando.com/2015/06/22/we-got-geeks/ <comment><USER2> I guess a deeper problem than homeless people being "scary" is that they remind the engineers that all their work driving ad impressions doesn't _really_ improve the world.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems like I read this article a few years back.</comment>


Low-cost video ads for startups - <AUTHOR> http://imaginetvinc.com <comment><USER2> In Firefox, I only saw a blank page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Ben, just tried opening on Firefox, the page loads fine. www.imaginetvinc.com</comment></comment>


Google's nit-picky interview process is a turnoff for some experienced coders - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/why-an-older-google-contract-programmer-left-google-2016-10 <comment><USER2> It's a good goal for your interview process to "turn off" or filter some experienced hires. Not all experienced people are good coders.

Google, however, seems to be selecting/rejecting the wrong people. I've used dozens of Google products, and not one of them is stable/reliable (except for Gmail).</comment>


Fortnite: UK player finishes second in e-sports World Cup - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49141738 <comment><USER2> Yeap. And some people wonder how millennia's spend their time. It turns out by playing 10 hours per day for 6 months can make you a millionare.</comment>


Show HN: Vlide.vim, vim as a presentation tool - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/javier-lopez/vlide.vim <comment><AUTHOR> I was reading [https://blog.dbi-services.com/using-tmux-for-semi- interactiv...](https://blog.dbi-services.com/using-tmux-for-semi-interactive- demos/) last week and though it was a great idea, so I hacked this vim plugin to make it easier.</comment>


Technical advances that could make wind power viable everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/making-wind-power-work-even-in-low-wind-locations/

<comment><USER2> One thing to bear in mind is that there are theoretical Limits to windmill efficiency: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz's_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz's_law)

In short, we can't extract more than about half of the available wind energy, no matter what the design.

This is because if all kinetic energy is extracted, the air would no longer be moving behind the windmill, so it would stop turning. Betz's law is the optimum compromise between extracting energy and sufficient airflow to keep the windmill rotating.

<comment><USER3> I'm concerned about all the math being per-area, which makes bigger windmills seem inevitable. But surely its per-dollar that determines commercialization potential. 1000 small windmills could be the better choice if they could be made cheaper per watt after all.

<comment><USER4> Wind energy economics favor: fewer blades (though the three bladed design has some mechanical properties that make them the default choice), larger swept area, horizontal axis turbine (even though you need to aim those at the wind nobody has been able to produce a very large VAT that survived for even a short amount of time), direct drive (because gearboxes are very much prone to failure).

1000 small windmills would not be commercially competitive with a single large machine, would not extract as much power from the same amount of wind and would not be as safe. Small machines have to make a lot more RPMs so are inherently higher maintenance (bearing wear), harder to operate when connected to the grid and so on.

I'd love it if that weren't the case (which is why I built my own 5 meter/16' machine) but ultimately wind power will be dominated by several MW behemoths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Living near a number of wind farms:

\- They are noisy in a very annoying way - Swoosh Swoosh Swoosh. I don't know about you, but clocks ticking drive me up the wall. Now I can add wind turbine blades swooshing do the same. It's not really a noise so much as a pressure wave.

\- They strobe. Sometimes reflecting the sun. Sometimes the blade shadows fall over you. Blink, blink, blink, blink.

\- They are efficient bird murdering machines.

I like the idea of wind turbines. Reality is not nice. Bring on solar!

<comment><USER3> Its true solar is easier to live with. But regarding the last - solar is efficient everything-under-them murdering machines. They sterilize the land, similar to strip-mining but without the poison. So not really eco-friendly, which is ironic.

<comment><USER6> There's still a lot of area available for solar power that doesn't involve getting rid of plants, though. Deserts, house and car roofs, for example.

<comment><USER3> Everybody says 'desert' as if it isn't the most delicate ecosystem on earth. yes, solar panels covering up desert destroys that ecosystem too. Living things there are totally dependent on the large amounts of sunlight.

As for houses and car roofs - that amounts to almost zero in the big scheme of things.

<comment><USER5> The moon!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are many more step forward the wind energy industry can still see. Not only incremental ones. Before moving to SF I was at Energie Etiche, an Italian startup that is bringing to the market an innovative wind assessment software. By cutting the preliminary wind assessment time from 18 to 3 months and the relative costs from $15k to $2k-$4k it's possible to open up the whole "Small Wind Market" (aka <100KW)

<comment><USER8> Check out "Wind Prospector", which has a zoomable map and a wind model for the entire United States.[1] It uses a climatic model and topography data to calculate wind power potential. Spend a few minutes with that and you can see where the wind industry can and can't grow. For the US, the big potential is offshore and in the area due north of the Texas panhandle. California has four good onshore wind sites, and all have big wind farms already.

[1] [https://maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector](https://maps.nrel.gov/wind- prospector)

<comment><USER7> Yes, this is one of the possible approach to the wind assessment challenge. Unfortunately it is not accurate below 250ft, the wind is not linear and this kind of model doesn't count well enough all the obstacles at the low altitudes. Therefore this model doesn't work for the <100KW turbines and when it comes to >100KW, the investment is so big that you still want an on-site- specific wind assessment. In conclusion this service is useful only for curiosity or for preliminary observations

<comment><USER4> Local variations can be huge so you are spot on that for any site that expects to produce power a local assessment is a must. Even so a chart like that helps to determine whether or not going for windpower makes sense at all and how much you can (on average) expect to get out of it indicating what your 'mix' of renewables should be to ensure year-round power, which is especially important for off-grid installations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > A European company is also selling a blade that is shipped in segments and > then bolted together at the site of use.

Why is this "European company" not named? European companies are bad, while GE is good?

<comment><USER4> I think that refers to Gamesa.

[https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=gam...](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=gamesa+segmented+blade&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the link.

By the way, what really irked me is that I notice more and more how EU companies are very often shunned by US based media, which we in the EU use ourselves as reference. This was really a blatant case.

<comment><USER10> US based media are highly tuned to what their readers want to read and just focuses on American names/companies that their readers know most about in addition to not caring about what companies are doing in EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Did I miss a segment of that article on energy storage?

One of the most difficult components of making wind energy practical on a large scale for any grid is it's lack of predictability. I suspect that things are somewhat more predictable at higher altitudes but not so much so that it mitigates the challenge of having a turbine that isn't necessarily going to be spinning when you need it.

</comment><comment><USER12> There is a nice picture of a new 4MW Enercon model in [http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/WB_012015_GB.pdf](http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/WB_012015_GB.pdf) Showing most of these advances.

<comment><USER4> Enercon is absolutely incredible in how they steadily ramp up their production capacity and improve the yield and size of their machines. They're engineering marvels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there anything preventing us from fabricating rotor blades on-site at large wind farms?

<comment><USER4> Rotor blades are extremely high tech, fabricating them on-site is theoretically possible by using a mobile factory but that factory would be several times the size of the blades that it produces, would need specialist operators, very well controlled conditions for the curing phase of the blades and a testing facility to ensure the end product is safe to install.

Compared to that fabricating them centrally and trucking them to the site (usually at night using 4 rigs, one for the nacelle and 3 for the blades) is a no-brainer from an economics perspective.

If an extremely large wind-park would be funded and planned many years in advance you could possibly build a windmill factory near it at an advantageous location and keep running it after the park is completed to supply other localities nearby.

<comment><USER14> What about using an unmanned, hydrogen filled, dirigible?

Either conventionally powered, solar powered, or simply towed from the ground along roads?

I'm liking the towing idea. To deal with bridges have two cables, and some drones to carry the cable over the bridge and back to the towing truck.

<comment><USER15> Wind farms are usually built in windy areas. Dirigibles are less controllable in windy conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I can see how 3d printing could really help wind power. Printing rotor blades, and maybe even towers onsite could have drastic savings. The same type of powered platform that 'builds' cranes could be affixed to the tower with 3d printing capabilities. At the end, after it has climbed up the tower it build and printed the rotors, a crane could take it down, and install the mechanical components.

<comment><USER4> The forces on rotor blades are _not_ in any way friendly or easily assessed, 3D printing 35 to 70 meter long structures with very well defined properties and extremely high tensile strength as well as resilience against fatigue is currently (and for the foreseeable future) not an option.

Windmill blades are limited in size by current materials science and requires a very large amount of high tech composites such as carbon fibre, resins and so on.

Towers are high grade welded steel, foundations are huge compared to the bit of the tower that pokes out above ground and none of all of that is currently made from a material that can be 3D printed.</comment></comment>


Start-Ups Get Free Chance to Pitch to Angel Investors - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575310561617944540.html some great press... most of the companies from Open Angle Forum seem to be getting funded. I think over 25-50% that present will get funded within six months of presenting. really great to hear all the success stories. <comment><USER2> We pitched EditRing at the Open Angel Forum and it was a great event for everyone. We made 3 good connections, one of whom introduced us to several key people and one who got pretty far in due diligence talks with us.

I do think it could have helped to have a little more coaching before the event (the valuation we asked for was too high, which scared off some investors -- they didn't actually approach us and say the valuation was too high, they just shied away, which is probably because of the awkwardness of being pushy on price).</comment>


Money buys happiness -- if you spend on someone else - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2042446720080320?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

<comment><USER2> Well, what the heck.

I just ordered my mom and girlfriend flowers, something I've only done for birthdays and Valentine's day come to think of it. It was $50, but the article is definitely right.

Hackers, take a hint. :-)</comment>


Ask HN: What's your favorite simple, content-centric Wordpress theme? - <AUTHOR>

Looking for a beautiful, content-centric Wordpress theme with a fixed header. What are some of your favorites? <comment><USER2> This one comes to mind (it's free): [http://onepagelove.com/themes/clutterless](http://onepagelove.com/themes/clutterless)</comment>


Why women (or men) still can't have it all - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-t-have-it-all/9020/

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that she was referring to the idea that, while many aspects of parenting can (and perhaps should) be equalized between the parents, the fact is that current culture places child-related responsibilities more heavily on the mother than the father.

This is to the detriment of fathers as well, because a father who wants to shoulder the responsibilities of raising a child, will also be assumed to have a partner who takes primary care of that.

</comment><comment><USER2> _But almost all assumed and accepted that they would have to make compromises that the men in their lives were far less likely to have to make._

What decisions is she talking about here?</comment>


Ask HN: How many of you would prefer a 30-hour workweek, with 3/4 of the pay? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I did this with my current gig. It is every bit as good as you might imagine. Do it if you can.

I had the advantage of working on a contract basis, so there was never really any negotiation involved. I informed them that I'd be dropping down to four day weeks, so it followed that my invoices would reflect that. No big deal. Not so much as a word of objection.

There are a few nice things about being in the single best market for developer talent in the history of ever. Being able to prioritise quality of life in ways like this is definitely one of them.

<comment><USER3> Did the same thing with my current freelance gig. Overall, this a huge benefit to freelancing in general. When I was working full time, a change like this would involve discussions with several layers of management, cosiderations of how this would fit in with "company culture" (not well, in my experience). Freelancing, it took one 10 minute chat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem is that health care is usually provided by the employer and they are not required to offer benefits if you work 30 hours a week. If there was a good way around this then I would love to work 75% time but you are likely to end up with just over 50% of the effective pay.

</comment><comment><USER5> That would be awesome. I'd do it 3x10 (days x hours) if possible, otherwise 3x8 with 1x6 sounds good as well. 5x6 is a lot less appealing. I've done 4x10 for a few months at a team in the past, and I found that to be better than 5x8.

</comment><comment><USER6> Me. I personally consult so I can do something similar to this, but at 50% time.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd love to be able to shift into this mode temporarily, assuming I could keep my health insurance. Maybe for a few months, just to give myself some breathing room, maybe make progress on some side projects, or do some volunteer work.

</comment><comment><USER8> Currently, no, but once I have kids I will wish I could do this in order to spend more time with them. I wouldn't want to work fewer days though, I would prefer to work five six-hour days a week so I could get home earlier.

</comment><comment><USER9> Officially, I do four-day week / 0.8 of the pay. Actually, if I finish the tasks I set for the day in one hour, I end the day. If I do not finish them in four hours, I also end the day. It is awesome.

</comment><comment><USER10> I only work 20 hours a week. Money is a little tight at times but it gives me plenty of time to work on my own personal projects such as car restoration of my own projects on github.

</comment><comment><USER11> I would if I could structure the 30 hours myself. For example, I would rather have 2.5 12-hour days or 3 10-hour days than 5 6-hour days.

</comment><comment><USER12> I would love to get paid 75% for half the amount of time I spend at work.

</comment><comment> dev-ious why the paycut ? on average you endup wasting time on meaningless tasks anyway :)

<comment><USER13> Depends of the definition of meaningless tasks. What you cut in money you make up for in wealth. You have more discretionary time to do what you want: work on side projects, doing things you can't otherwise do outside of work hours on a weekday, and just getting an early recharge so you can be more effective on the days you do work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would prefer this.</comment>


No expectation of privacy on public transit - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/problemsolver/ct-biz-0926-problem-fastwolf-20100926,0,1506111.column

<comment><USER2> I used to be really into street photography[1] and this issue tends to creep up from time to time.

If you're on public property of _any sort_ , you don't really have any expectation of privacy outside of the bathrooms or such.[2] That shouldn't be the surprise and that shouldn't be the title of this link. Hell, you can take photographs of people and things _on private property_ as long as it's readily visible from public property and you're not trespassing on the private property.

But! Using said photographs commercially (generally, any use that brings in _direct_ profit) can be a misappropriation of likeness and also a violation of one's right to publicity[3] -- the right to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.

Being an asshole about it and changing every photograph on the site to _hers_ is an interesting move. I'd really love to see what would happen if she pressed charges in response to that.

\---

[1] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photog...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Street_photography)

[2] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_a...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_States)

[3] [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or- likenes...](http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness- another)

<comment><AUTHOR> People seemed to have misunderstood the title of the link -- I meant it as a declarative statement, not a surprised exclamation. Perhaps I should have added "consequences of" to the beginning, but my point was just to share a particularly unpleasant experience.

On the plus side, the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting.

<comment><USER2> > the discussions below about using AdSense to monetize a website dedicated to > profiting off non-consensual pictures of people is quite interesting.

Yeah, there are a few sites like this now ("People of Wal-Mart", some content on "Look at this fucking hipster") and I've always wondered about the same thing.

You're usually in the clear if you're just creating one-off works of art or news/editorial commentary -- and not primarily seeking merch sales or ad revenue... But these sites are pull _wholesale_ exploitation of public photos for ad revenue. (Although, "People of Wal-Mart" claims to honor takedown requests and I haven't heard any hub-bub about them pulling a stunt like this one. And since most of the photos on that site are _indoor_ , within Wal-Mart private property, there's that issue they could theoretically put up with.)

In my mind, sites like these could be a lot harder to police than copyright infringement (on say, YouTube or elsewhere) since the onus of litigation is on an individual being photographed, rather than a large multinational rights- holding company. (Personally, I really don't have the time to go looking for photos of myself that others may have taken of me.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I can understand why the owner of the website is concerned about competition: being a dick on the internet is a very crowded market.

I wonder if we'll see more of this sort of asocial behaviour as the 4chan generation grows up - or at least gets older - and find themselves in more positions of authority/power?

<comment><USER4> Asocial? People watching and making fun of everyone not in your ingroup is not exactly one of humanity's more recent inventions.

Neither is being a dick.

Neither is being upset when a photo of you shows up somewhere.

The only insight here is how slow of a news day today must be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can report a policy violation to Google AdSense by clicking on the link in the bottom right corner of the offending site:

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

I hope Google cuts them off.

<comment><USER6> Which of the AdSense policies are they violating though?

<comment><USER7> AdSense policies are part of a larger superset of things that you can get cut off for. State and federal laws are also part of that set. As the article notes, "state law that prohibits people from using someone else's identity for commercial purposes without that person's permission". I'm not a lawyer, but in my (unqualified) opinion this is pretty clear cut.

<comment><USER8> I think it's a bit more complex and gray-area when you need a model release, even for commercial publications. The canonical "need one" example is using someone's likeness on a billboard to sell products, or on the label of your product. The canonical "don't need one, even if use is commercial" example is newspapers publishing photographs taken in a public place as part of an article. For example, you don't need a protester's permission to publish a photo of them at a rally, even if your newspaper/magazine sells ads and is for profit.

There's a lot of in-between area, though. This site doesn't seem to be clearly using the photos in the model/advertising sort of way; they're not using them to launch a line of public-transit-rider products or putting them on tshirts or something. It's definitely a step down from journalistic reporting, but I could see it arguably falling closer to that than to the usual cases where model releases are needed. You could imagine a genuine reporter running a story on fashion trends in different demographics or something, illustrated by a few photos taken out in public, and this is basically the half-assed, mean- spirited tabloid version of that focusing on one particular demographic.

(Though as far as AdSense in particular goes, Google can of course make up any rules they want.)

<comment><USER9> You don't see newspapers vindictively replacing all of their content except ads with a humiliating photo and a mocking, false story about their subject.

<comment><USER8> I agree, but that's more a question of whether it's valuable/interesting/trashy than a question of whether it's promotional modeling use, isn't it? This just doesn't look like the kind of uses that model releases are normally required for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just because you are within the bounds of legality doesn't mean that your not being a dick about it. There is a line between providing the public with some cheap laughs and being a total ass. Kubera, the anonymous employee, and the company as a whole crossed it.

Taking the photos in public, no problem. Posting them to the site, no problem. Laughing your ass off at them, again no problem. Not doing what you said you would if someone requested it taken down, problem.

If you say you're going to take something down upon notice, just do it.

From People of Public Transit FAQ:

Q. What if I see myself in a post and want you to take it down? You need to send in 9 forms of identification to prove to us that it's really you. Seriously, just tell us and we'll happily remove it for you.

From People of Walmart FAQ:

I'M IN A PICTURE ON YOUR WEBSITE AND I WANT IT TAKEN DOWN. HOW DO I DO THAT? Simply email us and we will take it down, no problem. If you like your photo but hate the caption or comment send us an email and we can remove it.

Does anyone have cases from People of Walmart? Have they pulled any stunts like this on a take down request before?

<comment><USER2> That's the thing: I almost feel like POPT is pulling this (legally risky -- commercial use [via ad revenue] of likeness, possible harassment, etc.) stunt to grab attention to their own site.

While POW is still in the same grey area (regarding commercial use of likeness), at least they seem to honor takedown requests -- or at least, I gather this since _I've never heard a single complaint_ about it and their site is still alive and kickin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening.

Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28drRBsJ:blueflameideas.com/411.html+john+kubera&cd=40&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

John is the one on the left with the mustache.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is fucked up.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's interesting that "People of Public Transit" seems to provoke a negative reaction, while "People of Walmart"[1] has been hailed as funny and even "the best website ever"[2].

I guess context is everything in this situation. Walmart bad, public transpo good.

1\. <http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/>

2\. [http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best- website...](http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/people-walmart-best-website-ever)

<comment><USER14> I think the negative reaction has more to do with how the website owner was not only discourteous, but has gone further in promoting a campaign of harassment against someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening.

Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28drRBsJ:blueflameideas.com/411.html)

John is the one on the left with the mustache.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is not so much about privacy so much as being a douche bag. This type of bullshit behavior makes it impossible for real photographers attempting to capture 21st century life the way Garry Winogrand might have impossible. There can never be trust between subjects and photographers. Just try getting model releases if this shit keeps happening. Let John Kubera know how you feel about his efforts to help photography: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RRba28d..). John is the one on the left with the mustache.

</comment><comment><USER15> it's when I see story like this that I remember I really hate assholes ...

what's killing me too is that they get away with that but something like google streetview have to blur people face for privacy reason

their TOS (see 3.1.7) considering the context is ridiculous (and obviously not followed)

on top of that, they use the chicago tribune article as advertizing for their website (that I never heard of before)

and that is really the worst part, those guys with no idea (people of wallmart -> people of the public transit, shit my dad says -> stuff my boss says, etc.) may end up getting some bucks with more popularity, all that by exploiting the stupidity of people who can not understand a bit of difference from the norm.

the only thing those guys deserve is to get DoS'ed and/or banned and/or ignored.

Entrepreneurship should be rewarded when you do something cool, not when you exploit someone else.

[edit] and here the photo of the asshole <http://twitpic.com/2sb48b>

</comment><comment><USER16> Sorry, the website owner might be being a dick, but it's long established that there's no expectation of privacy in a public place. If you want to use someone's image in news on, or on your Flickr account, or on a site showing off "Do's and Don'ts" you don't need permission. For more commercial things, like an ad or a book, you do need a model's consent.

<comment><USER17> Considering the website in question is essentially a commercial enterprise (It utilizes Adsense) I'd say this falls outside the realm of fair use.

<comment><USER16> Fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement.

This is about whether you can publish someone's picture -- and perhaps even profit off it.

Sorry to tell you but the First Amendment is clear here, like this kind of speech or not.

It's like you guys have never seen Hot or Not, the NY Times Sunday style section or a copy of Vice magazine. Get a grip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Jesus. I hardly ever get annoyed by things on the internet, but seriously, wtf? This makes my skin crawl.

</comment><comment><USER19> Why would there be?

</comment><comment><USER20> She should DoS his site to teach that punk a lesson.

</comment><comment><USER21> Douchebags always exist. There really should be some kind of quality control as to who gets to start their own website or company. This would of course be impossible but in theory it would let us use our brains for more useful stuff instead of constantly having to wade through all the bullshit done and created by idiots like the site owner.

<comment><USER21> I should have mentioned i know its not a crime to take a picture in a public spot. Just saying doing stuff like that is not cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'll be the voice of dissent here: I think it's ok. Her whole style of clothing and even choices in hair color are norm violating, attention grabbing devices. If she would have left well-enough alone, her picture would have faded into obscurity with millions of other pictures.

Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident.

While the owner of the website is not being a super-friendly-pushover, and I know his behavior falls into what society considers asshole behavior, I feel things will be really fucked up if he is legally forced to remove the pictures, or if Google cuts his page revenue. That'll be censorship in my opinion.

<comment><USER5> _Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident._

You know, I'm positively tired of the "Streisand effect" argument. Are we supposed to let anything pass out of fear that a mildly embarrassing situation escalates?

Perhaps she does not even care about the picture. Perhaps she does not want to live in a society where harassing unsuspecting individuals is acceptable. Without going public and finding like-minded people, nothing will change.</comment></comment>


Spanish prime minister's party suggests ban on internet memes - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/no-joke-spanish-prime-ministers-party-suggests-ban-on-internet-m/ <comment><USER2> United States haves Trump. We have Rajoy and the PP (Popular Party) ....</comment>


New Hillary Clinton emails about Iraq released - <AUTHOR> https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=iraq|baghdad|basra|mosoul&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult <comment><USER2> Here's an email that outlines the administration's argument against Wikileaks.

[https://wikileaks.org/clinton- emails/emailid/29253](https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/29253)

      Whistleblowing is when someone reveals an act of official wrongdoing,
      and because it is official wrongdoing we assume that it's in the
      public interest to know about this and hold the culprits accountable.

      Instead what WL is exposing, by and large, is a vast number
      of official acts of rightdoing — diplomats engaged often with
      partners from other governments or civil society...

      ...accomplishing good objectives demands the kind of cooperative
      engagement that confidential relations permit, and so, while we
      can and should maintain a general commitment to transparency,
      we also can and should recognize that a responsible government
      that is to be held accountable for delivering benefits for its
      people, will sometimes need to work in confidence in order to
      do so.

      Whistleblowing exposes misconduct that runs counter to the interests
      of citizens. Wikileaks undermines good conduct on behalf of citizens.

<comment><USER3> Nothing surprising, although "rightdoing" sounds like it's straight out of 1984. Of course any administration is going to say all its actions are good. Things are bad, like spying on your citizens or negotiating away their rights, when other countries (who are not your allies and sharing data/trading with you) do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you clear the search box and re-run the search you'll get the full result set, with 30,322 emails.

> On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails > & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server > while she was Secretary of State.

Unless I'm missing something and 1258 were added today?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes. 1258 were added today.

[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/749927529457352704](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/749927529457352704)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just to clarify as the title got edited out. The 1258 emails were released today.

</comment><comment><USER5> Are these released by the state department or are they leaks if they are leaks then Clinton can't say that it didn't do any harm to the US.

</comment><comment><USER6> According to reddit these emails are not new. I am not sure myself.</comment>


Does anyone actually *like* React these days? - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1006685205011234816 <comment><USER2> I dislike React these days. Parts of it are great. It still has the best ecosystem of all the JS frameworks and the virtual dom diffing is still the best in the business.

But, more and more, I'm having to adopt third party solutions to overcome the limitations of React. First it was Redux, because global state makes more sense than local state for anything non-trivial. Then it was Redux Router because control flow in React sucks. Then it was Sagas, because controlling side effects and limiting race conditions is crucial in a large React application (and, once again, control flow in react sucks). Now I'm adding in styled components because every other react styling solution I've seen has serious drawbacks and limitations.

Only after adding all of that do I feel like we're getting to the place React had intended when it was first released. Render functions are free of almost all logic. Everything is declarative and composable. Most of my components are now stateless, which makes everything so much simpler. Because of all of these additions, there's very little 'React' there anymore. I realized the other day that the more features of 'React' I jettison the happier I am with my applications.

<comment><USER3> But these are not problems with React. Sounds like you want a framework, not a library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > a certain barrier to entry because it needs JS knowledge

Maybe I'm missing some context, but what is this supposed to mean?

<comment><USER5> It means you'll need dedicated UI devs rather than have your backend/fullstack devs rotate into front-end roles, as Agile postulates.

<comment><USER6> Not if your backend is Node! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is also the tooling behind react, that makes it hard to use in NON node environments.

Create react app is wonderful, but only if you're writing node backends.

Here is partial solution to this problem

[https://github.com/pycampers/react-pages](https://github.com/pycampers/react- pages)

(I created that)

</comment><comment><USER8> I love React. Especially when strictly sticking to stateless functional components. It's a truly elegant way to develop.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like React.

</comment><comment><USER5> React is the new Angular ("a next-gen UI layer") sucking just in a different way.

<comment><USER10> Can you elaborate on this? I've really only worked on my own React code or on code where I have a lot of control over quality, and have no idea how it's being used "in the wild" so to speak.

<comment><USER5> Yeah my comment was a bit trollish to get a discussion going. I actually prefer React over Angular, but React is overused a lot IMHO where a basic Ajax-y site would do and is much more adequate. Folks seem to over-engineer using React to pad their resumes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Self promoters gonna self promote.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't like react, it's way too messy, it doesn't feel as well designed as other solutions. I walk away from job offers when they say "React", no matter how amazing the idea or job is, I just do not want to work in it.

Most of the time when a company says "We use React" it translates to "we rebuilt EVERYTHING in react, instead of going piece by piece."</comment>


Mozilla quietly kills Firefox 64-bit for Windows - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/11/22/mozilla-quietly-kills-firefox-64-bit-for-windows-despite-an-alleged-50-of-testers-using-it/ <comment><USER2> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4817574>

</comment><comment><USER3> I use Pale Moon 64-bit, custom-built and optimized Firefox clone: <http://www.palemoon.org/>

<comment><USER4> ...for Windows Operating Systems.

<comment><USER5> Firefox is natively 64bit on Linux and OSX already.

<comment><USER4> So? I replied to a comment about Pale Moon (not Firefox, which I'm obviously using), so you might wanna take your downvote back.

From their website: _"A custom-built and optimized Firefox-based browser for Windows"_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This just reeks of dumb. Seriously guys, support 64 bit platforms or perish.

<comment><USER7> They do support 64 bit platforms. With 32 bit binaries.

If you have no need for more than 3gb of memory per process then 32 bit is a great choice. The pointers being half size is a non-trivial memory saving.

I'd be happy if windows would let you use something like the x32 build target that linux got recently for extra registers though.

<comment><USER8> I'd rather not have to pollute a pure 64-bit install with a whole bunch of 32-bit libraries to run just one 32-bit app though. It's adds even more headache keeping those patched and up to date.

<comment><USER9> remember that we are talking windows here. which libraries do you have to patch for firefox (i.e. those they do not ship and which are not in the core win os)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mozilla seems, at least to me, to be becoming more and more like the GNOME project. It's projecting a constant stream of unusual, if not outright bad, ideas and actions.

The Firefox version numbering debacle, including the constant problems it caused for extensions, was just plain silly.

Then there's Firefox Mobile. I've always found it very inferior to the other commonly-available mobile browsers. Aside from trying it out briefly, there was no reason to continue using it. This is probably the same for others, and likely why its uptake basically hasn't happened at all.

Earlier this year they seem to have withdrawn their interest in Thunderbird, which is by far one of their better offerings.

More recently, there's been a lot said about Firefox OS. There's a very good chance that this will become an unused, uninspiring, generally-ignored product, much like Firefox Mobile.

And now there's this decision.

Redirecting effort away from applications that are actually used, like Firefox and Thunderbird, toward things that clearly have little to no future, like Firefox Mobile or Firefox OS, just doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER11> > things that clearly have little to no future, like Firefox Mobile or Firefox > OS, just doesn't make sense.

Firefox OS has to be the most exciting thing they're doing. Why does it not have a future?

<comment><USER12> Because a lot of people don't give a bear about Firefox OS.

<comment><USER13> A lot of people do.

It isn't officially released yet, so of course it's not going to be as popular as a released product. Android wasn't popular until acquired and pushed by Google.

<comment><USER14> Who does? Tell me of the millions and millions of users out there waiting in anticipation of Firefox OS? Firefox decide to kill off around half of their Nightly (read most diehard users) and expect to carry that good faith over to what? Firefox OS? Are you going to convince the 30 million people that bought a Samsung Galaxy S3 that all of a sudden, the brand they bought into isn't actually important and that they should jump on the Firefox OS train? It's unrealistic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I used to use mainly Chrome and Firefox, but after moving to Windows 8 (I have to because I write some Windows 8 stuff) 64-bit, Firefox often hangs after opening, hangs after opening tabs, hangs after loading pages, etc.. I switched to using Safari as browser B, and I don't think that is even still official for Windows...

<comment><USER16> Why not Chrome?

<comment><USER15> I do use Chrome. I need a second concurrent browser for various reasons.

<comment><USER16> Ah, I misunderstood, thanks. I'd recommend Opera!

<comment><USER13> +1 Opera is so underrated.

Posted from Opera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There was never a 64-bit version of Firefox. There were 64-bit Nightly builds, which aren't even branded as Firefox. Running them because you wanted a 64-bit version of Firefox would have been a silly thing to do, because, as unreleased software, they also crash significantly more frequently than released Firefox versions, which almost certainly would have killed any productivity increase from running a 64-bit version of Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER18> The big question is, why won't 64 bit catch on? Too new? I had a 64 bit chip 10 years ago and most of you probably did too. Too expensive?

It's a good question and it probably comes down to programmers and habit. Multi core processing and async/multithreading are finally starting to take hold but optimizing for a 64 bit bus still seems like an afterthought.

I am asking seriously because I don't have a definitive answer, but why is it just not catching on?

<comment><USER19> Never underestimate human apathy. A super majority of the world does not care for progress, if it means having to change even the most nominal of habits. Not even for sometimes massive benefits. In fact, a great many individuals will become _extremely_ vocal if you try and force something as tiny as "picking one file extension for a file type instead of using two like we have in the past."

The only way things advance are when walls are finally hit. With 16-bit, this was trivial: the limitations were crippling. It'll get there with 32-bit, as applications begin to crash with the ~2GB per process memory limitations on Windows, and PCs continually appear with far more than 8GB of RAM available. But I'd say we are probably 5-10 years off from a point where we could consider deploying a 64-bit only application without losing users.

<comment><USER20> What you say is often true. Take Windows XP vs Windows 7; Windows 7 is miles ahead in the security department, that _should_ be a killer reason for people to upgrade. Or IPv4 vs IPV6 for obvious reasons.

But 64-bit has none of these big advantages in practice. Battery life on OS X was _worse_ right after the switch.[1] I have downloaded Podcasts a year before iTunes ran in 64-bit mode and they stopped working with the switch (nothing obscure - early Railscasts episodes). Many perfectly fine machines have been marked obsolete by Apple because their processors or graphics drivers weren't 64bit. - Windows has been a mess for me too: the 64-bit ODBC control panel is in system32 and the 32-bit ODBC control panel is in WoW64.[2] Because there are no fat binaries, casual users suddenly need to know which version of a Windows program to download. - So there is a lot of friction that needs to be outweighed. For _what_? - If Firefox wants to escape the 2GB barrier, the wiser choice might be to use one process per tab, as other browsers do.

If you look at the first and last sentence of your posting, you are basically accusing people of apathy because they keep using their 32-bit computers.

[1] [http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/104687/64-bit-safari- reduce...](http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/104687/64-bit-safari-reduces- battery-life-by-45) (might also be caused by API changes that Apple has tied to the 64-bit platform) [2] [http://robertoschiabel.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/windows-x64-...](http://robertoschiabel.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/windows-x64-32bit- odbc-vs-64bit-odbc/)

<comment><USER19> 64-bit binaries net me a 15% performance increase with my application. Obviously it can vary per application, and depends on where the bottlenecks are. It's been my experience that x86->amd64 is often beneficial: the x86 is so register starved that it makes up for the larger pointers, and most of the latter is mitigated through 32-bit relative instructions. Now PowerPC, sure. 32-bit PPC code does tend to run faster than 64-bit from my experience.

The other advantage is being able to utilize more than 2GB of memory per process. The reason to favor pure 64-bit is to get rid of all that extra 32-bit compatibility code. WoW64, in this case, or ia32libs on Linux.

Whether you're pragmatic about it or not, 32-bit will eventually go away. I'd prefer to see it sooner rather than for it to drag on for decades like IPv6.

And yeah, WoW64 is a clusterfuck. Basically, Microsoft wanted to make porting 32-bit applications as easy as possible. Since some applications may have been hardcoded to System32, they stuck the 64-bit libraries there, and put the 32-bit ones in WoW64. They also cloned the registry so you actually have 32-bit and 64-bit keys (see KEY_WOW64_32KEY flag.) What can I say? Microsoft's always had a thing for rigid backward compatibility at the expense of common sense design. But they are still the market leader, so I guess they know a thing or two :/

I don't care for your Firefox example. What if one single tab needs >2GB, like say a really high-end WebGL game? What about other applications? People found similar tricks for getting more memory in 16-bit processes too (far pointers), but we aren't still using Win16.

I'm accusing people of apathy because they resist change simply because it's change. I get being pragmatic, but at some point we have to cut ties with the past. Even Microsoft understands this, as you can no longer run 16-bit applications on the latest versions of Windows.

<comment><USER20> No doubts about the advantages of x86_64, I would insist on it in a new computer for virtualisation and encoding DVDs. But many people don't do much more on their computers than they can do on their highly restricted armv7 gadgets. Desktop software has reached a plateau IMHO, I don't think we can extrapolate from the 16->32 bit change. Gamers and IT professionals are a completely different beast of course.

How do you know that people hate change? Has anyone ever said "no, I don't want to run a 64-bit program, I've always been a 32-bit person"? People have to endure the crap in my grandparent post and that is what they hate and resist, especially if there is no tangible benefit to it. SSDs have entered the mainstream market much later and I have seen nothing but praise for them. SSDs are change too, often a painful one for a running system, but they solve an obvious problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> And here I was thinking they must be already working on the 64 bit for ARMv8 and Android for a 2014 release.

<comment><USER22> This is talking specially about 64-bit on windows, related to windows-specific problems. Linux and osx have fully-functioning 64-bit versions, so this won't hinder ARM 64-bit.</comment></comment>


OS mobile-first PWA e-commerce platform in Vue - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/DivanteLtd/vue-storefront <comment><USER2> simply awesome

<comment><AUTHOR> summon author!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> nice job</comment>


Marin County: Visitors Pack Coast Despite Order: Authorities Urge to Not Visit - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> We live at the beach (in San Mateo county, not Marin) and it was mobbed here today. I think everyone from the Bay had the same idea after being cooped up all week - let's go get some fresh air and enjoy the nice weather outdoors!

Meanwhile, literally everyone else had the same idea and suddenly coastal towns are mobbed. imo if this keeps up the shelter-in-place will be escalated to a larger quarantine order limiting travel.

We'll see how this develops over the next couple weeks. Been stressful here but trying to take it day by day.

Stay safe, everyone!</comment>


Show HN: MailTrigger – A Simple HTTP-Based Email Notification Service - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/BjoernKW/MailTrigger <comment><AUTHOR> This blog post explains the motivation and design rationale behind this tool in some more detail:

[https://bjoernkw.com/2017/12/24/mailtrigger-a-simple-http- ba...](https://bjoernkw.com/2017/12/24/mailtrigger-a-simple-http-based-email- notification-service/)</comment>


7 habits I learned to become more efficient programmer - <AUTHOR> http://www.nainomics.in/2011/12/7-habits-of-efficient-programmers.html

<comment><USER2> This article is also quite informative [http://web-development- digest.com/2011/coding-2/15-good-prog...](http://web-development- digest.com/2011/coding-2/15-good-programming-habits/4)

</comment><comment><USER3> You talk about indentation and spacing, yet your blog post is formatted like crap.</comment>


Facebook backs down in privacy case / Social Web site publicizes users' online purchases - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/30/MNERTLQAQ.DTL

<comment><USER2> I predict that Facebook will continue to push the limits of privacy violations, and will back off only when the outcry is so widespread that they're in danger of losing users.

</comment><comment><USER3> Beacon led me to consider deleting my Facebook account (I wasn't using it much anyway). Then I realized there is no easy way to delete one's Facebook account (deactivating your account doesnt really do much).

I did manage to find a way to delete my account (a hack really and it took some Googling).</comment>