Show HN: Feediary – RSS reader with zero tracking and zero ads - <AUTHOR> https://feediary.com/ <comment><USER2> If it's not an open-source client that I can run on my own machine, I wouldn't trust it.

There's nothing preventing a service from tracking you or giving away your data, no matter what reassuring words they use.

<comment><USER3> Which client do you use?

<comment><USER2> I use newsboat[1][2], an actively maintained fork of the excellent newsbeuter.

[1] - [https://newsboat.org/](https://newsboat.org/)

[2] - [https://github.com/newsboat/newsboat](https://github.com/newsboat/newsboat)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The lack of free/native RSS readers on Android/iPhone and MacOS (Thunderbird only?) is a truly sad state of affairs. I don't want social, I don't want online sychronization with whateverNews, I don't want smart, I don't want premium - just let me subscribe to the bloody RSS' URL.

<comment><USER5> I quite liked Vienna ([http://github.com/ViennaRSS/vienna- rss](http://github.com/ViennaRSS/vienna-rss)) while I had a Mac. It has options to run both as a standalone application and synced with various online services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why would an RSS reader with zero tracking or ads be a selling point? Those are not things an RSS reader should have to begin with, it's like advertising that you made an offline garden planner without tracking or ads: that is the expected baseline.

This seems a pretty strong case of the "having X is bad, so not having X must be good" logical reasoning fallacy.

<comment><USER7> _that is the expected baseline_

I don't know what world you're living in, but that is _absolutely not_ the expected baseline for consumer facing software in 2018 (unfortunately).

<comment><USER8> > I don't know what world you're living in, but that is absolutely not the > expected baseline for consumer facing software in 2018 (unfortunately).

I don't know what world you're living in, but none of the "consumer facing" software I use has built-in tracking, including my RSS reader.

It's actually sad that apparently even the tech literate people on HN have given up and just accept that creepy corporate tracking is a way of life.

What's even more sad is that I know many people here work for companies that do this and they go along with it.

<comment><USER9> If you use an RSS aggregator like Feedly, Newsblur, The Old Reader, or Inoreader, it's safe to assume and expect they will track you. It's shitty and there is (was?) no real alternative.

<comment><USER10> The alternative is a paid reader with no ads.

<comment><USER11> That also works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Congratulation on shipping it!

I definitely share the same values, so much that I developed a very similar Open Source RSS feed reader with the exact same requirements in mind (no tracking, no ads, no BS...).

[https://feedsubs.com](https://feedsubs.com) ([https://github.com/NicolasLM/feedsubs](https://github.com/NicolasLM/feedsubs))

<comment><USER13> Oh, I was excited when I read this...but there's no screenshot or demo. In any case, kudos for building something open source!

<comment><USER11> I'd just like to second that. I get gp built for gp, but if you want others to take interest...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In the 5 years I've used BazQux reader, I've never once had an ad injected, never received a single promotional email, and if they are tracking me, they are doing an amazing job of hiding it.

Fantastic software that I am proud to support.

bazqux.com

<comment><USER15> Thank you for the kind words!

Clickable link [https://bazqux.com](https://bazqux.com)

Actually BazQux Reader removes some simple tracking like 1x1 pixel images/iframes and filters out images containing ".ads.", "feedads", "google- analytics" and few more common ads/tracking sites. I've implemented it many years ago when tracking fighting wasn't mainstream mostly to improve reader speed.

I'm also planning to implement image proxy to make everything HTTPS (no mixed HTTP/HTTPS content) and to resize overlarge images (speed again) and thinking to add proxying of audio & video too. So site owners would not know that you've loaded anything from them at all.

The only thing that BazQux Reader tracks is feature usage: Add/remove subscription/star/unstar/tag/search/share/etc. And only fact of usage is tracked, no details (e.g., no records of what article was starred/shared, only fact that star/share was used). It helps me to get statistics of overall reader usage but of course I don't plan to sell it (and I don't think that anybody needs it).

BazQux Reader gets its money directly from clients. It's plain stupid to sell data of client paying $20-$30 a year for .000001 cent and loose all the trust (and money and self-respect).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Let me suggest to come up with a different hook. Lack of tracking and lack of ads are two of the fundamental defining (anti)characteristics of RSS. The whole point of RSS is to directly connect individual content providers to individual content consumers. This current hook is like trying to sell pillows on the basis that they don't spontaneously explode.

<comment><USER17> Well, feedly does inject ads so it is a thing.

<comment><USER6> It is a thing, and it makes feedly a bad application. "Not having ads" does not make your RSS reader good, it just makes it "not doing something bad and frankly, plain stupid". Not having trackers or ads is a given, in the same way your coffee maker doesn't come with tracking or ads, and you should go "uh, what? no thanks I'll use something else, this is ridiculous" when you find a coffee maker that does. Selling your coffee maker as "doesn't have tracking or ads!" just tells us your product has nothing else worth talking about.

<comment><USER18> Hello, thank you for your feedback. Yes, we do show ads in the Free version, there is always Feedly Pro with no ads. Ads in the Free version help us fund new projects and the infrastructure.

<comment><USER6> That's what paid pro accounts are for. Your product is good enough to merit people giving you money, which lets you develop the features that pro user benefit from, and free users get a taste of, to convince them to switch to a pro account.

Ads as your kickstarter in the absence of a pro account user base? Sure, if you have no other capital to work with, go for it. Still ads even after you have a pro account system in place generating cashflow? Now you're just being bad human beings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I tried it out for a bit and compared to my current reader of choice this is what I miss:

\- keyboard navigation

\- expanded view (full content in the list view)

Some other remarks:

\- The pricing is a bit high for me, for a couple € more I could run my own virtual server (which could also be used for many other things) with an opensource feed reader.

\- Do Not Track is a nice addition but it would be better to proxy the images through your service instead of removing them altogether.

\- The feed crawler should handle last modified and etag headers to save bandwidth both for yourself and the content providers (it could also use a proper user agent with a subscriber count in it).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey,

thanks for your feedback!

Keyboard shortcuts will be added in the next release (next week), and expanded view in the Reader is also planned and will be added in some of the next releases.

Also thanks for the other remarks, we will not decrease the price as this is the minimum to ensure the service is sustainable. Will definitely think about the image proxy and the etag headers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> [https://freshrss.org/](https://freshrss.org/) FTW!

</comment><comment><USER21> As an aside. I absolutely hate sites that only send a partial RSS feed, showing only the first paragraph or what have you.

I know the logic, entice me enough to click through, serve ads etc. but 90% of the time I won't, unless I am really interested, but MOST of all, I fly for nearly 30% of my week. First thing I do before boarding is updating my feed, not being able to access full content has had me unsubscribe to a whole bunch of sites in frustration.

/rant

</comment><comment><USER22> I recommend [https://tt-rss.org/](https://tt-rss.org/) It is quite easy to self host

</comment><comment><USER23> Oh all these "feed readers". Long ago, I discovered you can just send feeds to email. Once your feed is emailed to you, you can save it, forward it, read on the web, tablet, phone. Search it like a boss, and more. I use IFTTT by the way.

</comment><comment><USER24> Another alternative that's free (they also have a paid hosted version), open source, fast and written in Go: [https://miniflux.app](https://miniflux.app)

</comment><comment><USER25> Well, NewsBlur gives you all that and is open source too. It's also less expensive if you use the hosted version ($36/yr for NewsBlur vs 48€ for feediary).

<comment><USER26> I have a strong feeling I tried newsblur before and didn't like it so there might still be room for a couple of RSS readers.

(No this is not a jab at newsblur, it might be an excellent product just like other things I don't personally like. My point is only there is room for more products.)

Personally I use Feedbro which I find excellent:

\- works nicely (well, I had to restore my opml a couple of times) but when it works I really like it

\- no login. No account.

\- runs locally as a Firefox extension

It is not open source though as far as I can see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Imagine saying this about a native application like it's some special feature. Web 'apps' are terrible in so many ways.

<comment><USER28> Why would you think native applications do not track you? They do. And they have way more insight into your world then a web app.

<comment><USER29> What exactly is a native app going to 'track'? It has zero access to your browser.

<comment><USER30> When you open the app, when you close it, which button you press, which device you are on, which ip address this device is using ... there's a whole lot of things that fall under the general term "tracking".

There can be arguments made about if this is good/bad/neccessary/terrible/etc. but it's easily possible and done all the time.

Google Analytics makes it easy for example: [https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...](https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/android/v4/)

<comment><USER29> While I can see some wouldn't accept that level of information gathering, most of that doesn't tell the app author much.

It's not like a web-app that uses GA, which in turn means google's internal profile of you shows another app you use/etc.

The creepy level tracking that GA is possible of in a browser isn't quite there in a native app - there's no intrinsic data storage system like cookies that's shared between all native apps and sent automatically with http requests.

<comment><USER31> I suppose it can read/write the browser's cookie database whenever the browser isn't running -- or maybe even when it's running, I don't know. That would enable using Google Analytics just as if it was a webpage.

Do not forget that native code running locally is at least as powerful as X, for almost any X that you can use on your computer. (The only thing that's more powerful than that, is native code running locally as root.)

<comment><USER32> Really? I thought browsers encrypt their user data & such with some type of user credentials?

<comment><USER33> Chrome on Windows encrypts the passwords using the Windows encryption functionality, which is tied to the user's account. Any software running on the same account can decrypt them.

<comment><USER32> Oh ok, so but in chrome, I have to type my windows password to reveal my saved password. Can a native.exe app do that without requiring me to type my windows password?

<comment><USER33> Yes; Chrome doesn't actually use that password you type for anything, it just checks if it's correct - the function literally returns a single boolean. As soon as you're logged into your Windows account, they are available. In fact, if it wasn't so, Chrome would have to ask you for the Windows password for every form it wanted to fill with a password.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is neat. Can I pay a one time fee to run the service myself? Just a simple container or package of some sort.

This seems like a neat product, but it's better for me as a user to pay some amount once than 4/month forever. I want to encourage you to keep building the software, but have to keep my list of monthlies really small.

<comment><USER35> Regarding ideas on how to charge, I like how [https://sketchapp.com](https://sketchapp.com) handles this. Instead of charging $799 like the old Adobe Photoshop days, they charge a lower one-time price that receives updates for a year. You can choose to stay at that price or upgrade. You also don't need to back pay for years you skip if you choose to upgrade again.

<comment><USER36> One problem I have with that is if a designer sends me a file in a newer version I have to upgrade even if they didn't use a new feature. Photoshop at least let's you save in compat mode. So I'm basically forced to keep buying the newest version even though I use it maybe a few times a year. Not worth the price IMO.

<comment><USER35> I agree with those points. It may not be best for Sketch (design software) I was more referring to the licensing model, to offset the high lifetime price, that may put off someone buying.

<comment><USER36> Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with yearly subscriptions. I happily pay for newsblur for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Ok, I'll give it a go. Haven't really used any since Digg Reader closed.

</comment><comment><USER38> > Gets super interested.

> Opens website and sees subscription based model

> no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER39> Always happy to see a new reader. My only quibble is with the name - is it like diary or apiary?

</comment><comment><USER17> Did anyone use it? Is it any good?

Why there is no demo to try but it forces me to create an account?

<comment><USER40> How does it compare to yoleo, for example?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is RSS still alive? I'm asking this out of curiosity. I've stopped using RSS long time ago. It has nothing to do with Google Reader. I've stopped using RSS before Google Reader died.

<comment><USER42> There are certain technologies that are no longer considered sexy, but are extremely powerful for people who select the right tools and invest a little time in learning how to get the most out of them.

Text editors like vim and emacs; email clients like mutt; NNTP clients and text-only Usenet groups; RSS feed readers...

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I really like this.

</comment><comment><USER44> Feediary is definitely coming along nicely!

</comment><comment><USER45> Where's the download button?

</comment><comment><USER46> Thunderbird is already good enough.</comment>


Tesla's biggest market in Europe becomes the Netherlands as Model 3 sales surge - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/12/05/tesla-biggest-market-europe-netherlands-model-3-sales-surge/ <comment><USER2> Somewhat important to note I think is that the Netherlands has the highest public charge points to electric vehicle ratios in the world [0] which adds to the appeal (and lowers the barrier) of owning an electric vehicle.

[0] [https://twitter.com/TheICCT/status/915456384300281857](https://twitter.com/TheICCT/status/915456384300281857)

<comment><USER3> Also the taxes are changing so everyone wants one before the end of the year. Q1 2020 wont be this good.

<comment><USER4> That is mentioned in the first sentence of the article.

<comment><USER5> True but I reckon it will be the main cause of the surge described in the article, the current tax rules happen to be _very_ favourable for the Tesla model 3, which will be changed at the start of next year.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Did Thomas Kuhn Kill Truth? A review of Errol Morris's critique - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/did-thomas-kuhn-kill-truth <comment><USER2> Software developers are especially well-positioned to understand some of the controversial claims of Kuhn: his 'paradigm shift' would be to us a 'refactor'. Not just adding statements or fixing bugs (accounting for 'anomalies' would be the scientific version), but coming up with new primitive terms through which higher-level program statements are made (conversely, new terms/entities comprising the foundation of a theory).

My recollection when reading Structure of Scientific Revolutions was that toward the very end of the book he gets into some more traditional philosophy in relation to incommensurability, which centers around the technical impossibility of comparing paradigms and drawing metaphysical conclusions from that. But for most of the book he speaks very practically about making comparisons and talks about various measures that can be used to evaluate the efficacy of competing paradigms (e.g. accuracy with which theoretical claims match experimental measures, and number of claims which can be verified experimentally).

The article talks about a frustration of Kuhn's where "... Kuhn felt his critics disagreed not with his actual views but with distortions of his views — with the views of a fictional Kuhn." That has certainly been my experience in coming across discussions of Kuhn after reading Structure of Scientific Revolutions: "huh? Did we read the same book?" Most all of what he says is pretty common sensical, practical, illuminating and informed by history—but it seems that folks aren't interested in that and would prefer to ignore 95% of the book and respond to his concluding philosophical synthesis (which I mostly dismissed as an insignificant somewhat egotistical decoration tacked on to the book).

This bit from the article neatly clarifies the whole issue, IMO:

> _The issue here is not the denial of reality, but the denial of an > absolutely preferred way of talking about it. Statements can be true or > false, but not whole languages. As Kuhn puts it, "The ways of being-in-the- > world which a lexicon provides are not candidates for true /false."_

<comment><USER3> "Refactoring" is part of the current paradigm, so the act of refactoring is not a pardigm shift.

Consider, however, that you are a computer scientist in 2012 that has been working in the field of image recognition using hand written algorthms for 20 years. You are the best in your field, highly respected. Your code has been refactored so many times that you think it is near perfect.

Then along comes a young PhD student named Alex, and presents a completely different way of doing image recognition. Instead of talking about "refactoring", the talks about "retraining" or "rewireing". Instead of talking about "software architecture" he talks about "network topology". While you are "unit testing", he is "regularizing". He is still refactoring and building software architecture, you say, but for him, those are less important.

6 years later, everyone has forgotten about your life's work, and Alex's one paper has been cited 25 000 times and triggered a multi-billion $/year field of study.

I think THIS is the on-going paradigm shift in computer science, and it has just started.

<comment><USER2> > "Refactoring" is part of the current paradigm, so the act of refactoring is > not a pardigm shift.

The example you cited to justify that claim is a difference in magnitude, not intrinsic structure. I brought up refactoring as an analogy to highlight the key features of another structure less familiar to software developers.

<comment><USER3> The point of my example, is that the paradigm shift typically involves new people, with a new outlook, sometimes a different education or skill set, etc. They often are younger (but not always, sometimes they are just visionaries finally proven true, like Hinton).

When there is a paradigm shift, there is typically an "old guard" that is not able to or willing to let go of the old way, and that gets left behind. This is why the saying goes: "Science advances one funeral at a time".

In most cases (at least in my experience), refactoring is done either by the same team of programmers creating the original version, or a new team with a similar outlook to the old team.

This means that there is not really an "old guard" to leave behind.

But maybe you meant some other type of refactoring?

<comment><USER2> The key word in my previous comment would be 'analogy'. In any analogy, some elements in the analogous domain have no mapping. I was highlighting the isomorphism between code undergoing refactors and theories undergoing paradigm shifts, in terms of linguistic structure; I was not commenting on the social components of either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a background in both science and philosophy, and so I have thought a lot about Kuhn. Here are my conclusions.

To start, there are two parts to Kuhn's ideas. First there is a historical analysis of the process of an old theory being replaced by a new one. Second Kuhn tries to come up with a metaphysical explanation of what is going on here.

The historical analysis seems sound. I say that because it fits my own understanding, because scientists in general think it is right, and because philosophers of science, most of whom initially rejected it, have over the years come to mostly support it.

Where Kuhn gets into trouble is his metaphysical explanation. He has a sort of dualistic view that leads to a type of anti-realism, though he can't quite admit it.

What he should have done instead, in my view, is to explain his historical findings with a metaphysics from one of the anti-foundationalist philosophies, such as Pragmatism, existential-phenomenology, or the later Wittgenstein. This sort of approach makes possible a realism that fits his historical studies.

<comment><USER5> > First there is a historical analysis of the process of an old theory being > replaced by a new one. Second Kuhn tries to come up with a metaphysical > explanation of what is going on here.

Sometimes this is overblown. The canonical case of Relativity replacing Newtonian mechanics doesn't invalidate Newton. Rather, it makes Newton's theory a special case of GR that's still valid for most everyday calculations.

<comment><USER6> Exactly - and the same is true with regard to special vs. general relativity. Special relativity is another special case of general relativity for inertial reference frames. And special relativity itself is a necessary consequence of the theory of electrodynamics that Maxwell described holding true in every reference frame. But it no more replaces Maxwell's theory than brings it to its necessary conclusion. And even in the quantum world - which physicists famously can't reconcile with observations of general relativity - Maxwell's equations are true even though we have quantum electrodynamics - which include Maxwell's equations as their foundation.

So the paradigm shifts aren't often as earth-shattering as they seem to outsiders or as Kuhn makes them out to be, because they often subsume and contain the prior theory. The way Morris characterizes Kuhn makes it seem like the different worlds of theory, before- and after- revolution, are orthogonal to each other - or can't even talk to each other at all, because they are using the same terms to describe totally different concepts. But I don't believe that to be true in the slightest.

That said, I must admit that I haven't read Kuhn so I would have to rely on Morris' interpretation of Kuhn - which seems, ahem, somewhat slanted.

<comment><USER2> Kuhn is very explicit on that the typical behavior is this kind of subsuming rather than outright replacement. He even points out cases where the new paradigm causes us to lose the ability to say certain things we were capable of in the old one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well worth the long read. Astonished that the author is a "mere" grad student. Keep an eye on this one.

Nice to see a sympathetic account of Kuhn from a scientist. I've always felt that he wasn't worthy of admission to the Sokal Rogue's Gallery. (I sometimes wonder if I've been too quick to judge some of the other big names in that gallery)

<comment><USER8> I'm unfamiliar with the particular rogues gallery you mention. And a google search for that term didn't turn up anything obvious to me.

Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER9> Almost surely an allusion to Sokal's eponymous hoax: He published a hilarious gibberish paper in "Social Text", with the glorious title _Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity_.

Later, Sokal and Bricmont published a book, _Intellectual Impostures_ ( _Fashionable Nonsense_ in the US) about postmodern "intellectuals" abusing scientific terminology (eg Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Paul Virilio, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Luce Irigaray, Bruno Latour, and Jean Baudrillard); that would be the rogue gallery presumably.

It's an entertaining book, and I think those writers are guilty as charged.

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

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought this was going to be about the Kuhn vs. Popper argument, which is famous.[1] But he doesn't even mention Popper. Strange.

Read up on that if you're interested. It's much more significant than either Kordahl or Morris.

[1] [https://principia-scientific.org/who-got-the-scientific- meth...](https://principia-scientific.org/who-got-the-scientific-method-right- karl-popper-or-thomas-kuhn/)

</comment><comment><USER11> In debates about the philosophy of ethics, it's not unusual to see a philosopher's personal character brought up in a debate about their ideas. But this is a debate about epistemology! Morris ties relativism to the idea about there being two (philosophical) Kuhns, then to there being two (temperamental) Kuhns.

Morris must have spent years thinking, "I know my advisor's theory is wrong. I must come up with the next theory to replace it." That's what grad school teaches you to do. (I'm still doing it.)

When the prevailing theory denies the existence of universal truth, you can't attack the theory from within itself. You have to step outside it somehow. Is attacking Kuhn's temperament the plan? Did Morris sit down and say, there's no rational way to attack this theory, so I'm going to make this fallacious argument about Kuhn's character, presented in a compelling movie? Using post- truth tactics to defend objective truth?

</comment><comment><USER12> Great article!

Tangential, but the author's description of Kuhn's paradigms as describing things incommensurably differently ("claims that were true in the old way of talking might be false in the new way, and vice versa") reminds me of the way Hofstadter summarises Gödel's incompleteness thereoms in GEB. That is that no set of axioms can be both mathematically complete and consistent, so we may need multiple theories (paradigms?) to reason effectively and discover all truths.

Morris seems to claim (based on the author's summary) that necessary a posteriori truths (ala Kripke) provide some sort of anchor across these paradigms that proves newer paradigms are better than older ones because (and I'm a little unsure on his argument) newer theories are still describing the same thing in different detail and we can therefore see that a newer paradigm is objectively richer and more truthful.

However, I wonder as Kuhn did whether this argument is strong enough to handle all scenarios. As Kuhn argued, a concept of Heat is substantially different across paradigms. I would add to the list those qualitative problems like consciousness and qualia that seem, at least at this stage, to require non- scientific paradigms (ala Lyotard) to reason meaningfully about, but in taking on these paradigms we lose the ability, as Kuhn argued, to talk meaningfully about things we could previously.

</comment><comment><USER13> The essay as a whole has several interesting moments. Though rehabilitations of Kuhn like this remain troubling:

> In Kuhn's view, reality is out there, but it doesn't speak our language. It > remains forever alien, non-linguistic, regardless of how well we seem to > describe its various parts.

"Reality is indescribable" becomes a bit of a liar's paradox. Why should anyone think the sentence is an accurate description of the world, if accurate descriptions of the world are in fact out of reach?

Of course, it's possible this essay is a sometimes insightful and sometimes poor critique of a separate critique, that in turn is sometimes insightful and sometimes poor, and in turn comments on a treatise that wavers between obvious and overgeneralized depictions of scientific discovery.

Nobody's perfect.

<comment><USER14> > "Reality is indescribable" becomes a bit of a liar's paradox.

There is a difference between an imperfect description and a lie. Kuhn does not say that all descriptions of the world are lies, or that "anything goes", although he have sometimes been misunderstood as saying that.

<comment><USER13> Ah. That's not exactly what I meant by liar's paradox.

I just meant it's a paradox of self reference. The liar's paradox is the most famous, but the set of all sets that do not contain themselves is another.

So it's true the Kuhnian proposition is much closer to "Every claim about reality is (somewhat) inaccurate." But we still have a massive issue.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self- reference/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/)

Wikipedia: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Self- referential_pa...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Self- referential_paradoxes)

<comment><USER14> I don't see the paradox though. The problem with the liars paradox is not the self reference itself, the problem is that the self reference leads to a contradiction. I don't see any contradiction the sentence presenting Kuhn's view.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thank you to whoever made sure this news.ycombinator article title included "A review of Errol Morris's critique".

It was not super obvious from the article itself online that this article is a book review.

I thought the author was actually himself proposing some specific theory about truth (or science) (or whatever) and was getting really really frustrated wading through all the storytelling trying to find the specific theory that was being advanced.

Finally I realized it was a book review and that extra piece of context helped give the article (which is fun to read) some semantic meaning.

(I guess I take a different and much more naive view of the history of science and related fields, which is that (a) people are pretty smart, (b) people mostly make the best scientific decisions they can with the best info and ideas they have at the time, (c) a useful way to think about the history of science involves trying to reason about what people were thinking at the time and what was normal for them. Having read this book review I genuinely can't tell whether that's a Kuhnian or a Kripkean or a Morrisean Kripkean view or whatever.)

</comment><comment><USER16> To explain Kuhn to the HN reader, I'd like to make an analogy between an established enterprise, and a disruptive startup. The startup is disruptive, because it has re-thought a problem, and uses a different basic model to solve it.

This affects the language used to describe the problem and the solution. For example you still 'call' an Uber, but you actually don't call it anymore, you click on your phone screen to order it. So when a cab company and Uber talk about 'calling', they might have trouble agreeing what 'calling' really means (e.g., in Uber it already entails agreeing on a price, with a cab it doesn't). This is how I understand what Kuhn means with 'incommensurability'.

As the article points out too, it is not two completely separate languages. Rather, the shift in the underlying model also shifts the language, so that supporters of one model mean different things than supporters of the other model, when they make a statement.

</comment><comment><USER17> > To me, these "endless textual revisions and supposed clarifications" sounded > suspiciously like thinking.

How do you tell the difference between earnest thinking and flip flopping, "a sudden real or apparent change of policy or opinion by a public official, sometimes while trying to claim that both positions are consistent with each other... during the period prior to or following an election in order to maximize... popularity?"

Could we at least concede that when somebody says something that makes your bullshit detector go off, and then they change what they're saying, your detector isn't broken?

<comment><USER11> There are two reasons people change their stories. One is that they once believed something, but later discovered they were in error and now say something else they believe to be true. The other is that they don't care about what's actually true, and are just saying whatever they think will engage or impress their listeners. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" is a readable survey of this topic.

The second kind is far more common. But the first kind is really important. When someone updates their views we should pay attention. Perhaps a member of the rationalist community could prove this using Bayes theorem.

<comment><USER18> > The second kind is far more common.

When you revise your software, is it usually because the earlier versions were bullshit? Anyone who isn't constantly revising their ideas either isn't trying or is bullshitting.

<comment><USER19> I'd argue that human interaction occurs far more frequently than software updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well the postmodernists certainly cite Kuhn in support of their anti-reality drivel, but the real problem with Kuhn is that he was just wrong.

There's a mature science, where knowledge is limited but accurate, where new findings cause a recontextualization but no paradigm shift, and the previous knowledge is preserved within its new context,, and immature science, where people are doing things wrong, reaching conclusions with inadequate evidence, and stuff gets thrown out during a "paradigm shift", i.e. when they start doing mature science.

Examples of mature science are physics with the incorporation of relativity and quantum physics, which preserved Newtonian physics, or biology, where the human genome project revealed that there were 1/3 as many genes in humans as was previously thought, at which the field barely batted an eye and shifted in a heartbeat to looking more at gene regulation. Clearly, these are huge changes in the fields, but they don't rise to the level of a Kuhnian "paradigm shift" since the old knowledge and vocab and understandings were preserved.

What's an immature science? Probably the social sciences, or those areas of other fields where there's reproducibility problems, p-hacking, and other dysfunctions. To the extent that these fields have overarching paradigms, they may suffer a "paradigm shift". But in mature science, there just aren't any paradigm shifts, in the Kuhnian sense, happening, because a mature science has sufficient evidence in hand before generating a "paradigm".

Kuhn was wrong. But "Paradigm Shift" is a flashy phrase and it captured the zeitgeist of the time it was written. At this point, anything that helps tame this pop-philosophy-of-science phenomenon is not unwelcome, especially because, yes, Kuhn's writings are supporting anti-realist postmodernist trash, without being especially misread.

<comment><USER21> First, note that you are conflating Kuhn's talk of theories with talk of disciplines. The introduction of quantum mechanics enhanced the explanatory power of physics; it also sent alternative theories, which proposed too many factors or more poorly explained the world, to the dustbin.

On that note, can physics be called a "mature science," then? To reconcile relativistic and quantum physics—both of which provide limited but very accurate and useful results—would be a paradigm shift; it would require the revision of large parts of one or both theories to be able to combine them without contradiction.

There are core ideas in each of these theories which are not simply revisable: they are connected with too many others. Peripheral ideas are malleable; the precise number of genes isn't very important if we can still explain protein variety (via alternative splicing and other modifications).</comment></comment>


We're Gamifying Our Website - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/sideprojects/comment-streaks-leaderboard-improvements-more-87cf59c87ddd <comment><USER2> Hi, grats and question. On side-projects.net, on your profile page, how do you edit the name?

Name being: @XXX

<comment><USER2> *sideprojects.net</comment></comment>


Wellacopia is seeking beta testers - <AUTHOR> Hello there! Wellacopia is a platform where chronic illness patients (who we call "Seekers") are matched with practitioners ("Specialists"), and vice versa, based on personality, preferences, and approach to care. We believe that building strong healthcare relationships lead to better outcomes. Please join us in our mission by giving us your valuable feedback! Thank you so much for your time! You can find the beta test guide here: http://bit.ly/2tnVG00 You can test as either a seeker or a specialist. Or even do both! Just submit the form twice. <comment><AUTHOR> Edit: The actual URL for the website is beta.wellacopia.com Please note that the link in the post is to a Google Form document where we accept submissions for feedback. We are working on a new beta testing format as of now.

</comment><comment><USER2> Please don't use URL shorteners here. Is there a reason you need to hide the real URL?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello, I am sorry about that! Actually, no, we don't have anything to hide. It's just that our beta test guide is a Google Form that is separate from our website. We should've also posted the url for that and noted the reason for the shortener. It is beta.wellacopia.com. If you have any thoughts on how to improve the beta testing experience, please let us know! We found that many testers are frustrated with the form so we are working to create a new one. Thanks so much for your comment!</comment></comment>


SignAloud: Gloves That Translate Sign Language into Text and Speech - <AUTHOR> http://lemelson.mit.edu/winners/thomas-pryor-and-navid-azodi <comment><USER2> To properly translate ASL, you need to pick up a significant amount of grammar from the face (called non-manual markers) as well as body position, 3d capture of spatial relationships between signs as they are made, and other features which would be inaccessible to these sensors.

And then there's the fact that ASL isn't serialized English (it's actually unrelated to English at all, and has its roots in the French Sign Language). There's no one-to-one mapping between ASL signs and English words, just as there's no one-to-one mapping between Chinese and French, or any two languages. And ASL has grammar features not seen in any spoken language, to complicate things further.

These sensors could perhaps be used to translate other sign languages, but I'm really skeptical.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, even if they could perfectly transcribe the signs you'd have real problems/limitations here I think.

<comment><USER4> It's not really clear what it means to transcribe the signs anyway. There isn't very great notation for signed languages

<comment><USER5> I wasn't aware of the existence of any notation at all! The dictionary I have uses photographs, other dictionaries and textbooks use drawings of people speaking SL. The nearest thing to a notation in this case consists of a verbal description of face and hand gestures as they are carried out in real time.

I have often wondered if it would be possible to create a notation using the simplest and most abstract rendition of an actual SL speaker's signing. Lines and curves that hold the semantic essence of the movement of face, hand and posture. It would take a native speaker to be able to abstract what is truly essential to meaning, and a community to agree on its elegance and clarity.

Off topic, but connected: I discovered from experience that small children can form the SL alphabet with their hands before they acquire the coordination to draw written letters. I found it very useful in teaching my children to read.

<comment><USER5> Correction to my comment above: On taking out my Dictionary of British Sign Language, I find that there is indeed an intricate notation used throughout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a great project, but to nail this they are going to need more involvement from the deaf community as they've missed some key points:

1)ASL isn't just about hand movements, there is a ton of grammar that comes from facial expression. It's not just like English tone, but can actually change a word. Like can become "don't like" from facial expression.

2) Context is very key, there are a lot of words with multiple meanings that matter based on the sentence. It could be figured out from a really smart system but wouldn't be easy.

3) Lastly, ASL isn't English. This is the biggest mistake people make. You aren't simply putting words into symbols. ASL has it's own grammar, syntax and even slang. I remember spending 15 minutes trying to figure out what my ASL teacher was saying when he said he "ate champ burger" and it turns out he meant it was the best burger he ever had. To 'translate' ASL you need to move from symbols to words and then add in the context.

Ultimately there is a reason that professionals in this industry are called "sign language interpreters" and not "sign language translators" ASL is really hard to put into spoken or written language.

It's also worth noting at really high level events an ASL interpreter will translate spoken word into sign and then a "Certified Deaf Interpreter" will re-sign it because the ASL of someone who is has communicated in sign their entire life has far more facial expression and meaning than even professional interpreters who are hearing.

I think it's great to see advancements in technology trying to assist the deaf community, but I think it's important to get early involvement rather than assume we know what people need.

I hope they keep up the great work - it's on the right path.

<comment><USER4> Actually, the distinction (that I've seen) between "translator" and "interpreter" is whether the "transformation" is happening in real-time across spoken/sign language, or whether it's written language. Translators take text in one language and write it in another, like translating a legal document. Interpreters consume speech/sign in one language and speak/sign it in another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems cool, but I wonder how much of this is faked in the demo video. The man signs "T" and it's translated to "Thomas", "N" to "Navid", and "L" to "Lemelson". So unless this is a learning system as well, I'm skeptical. Lot of potential here for sure though, hope they keep it up.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if they've just hard coded their names for now because they had trouble doing fingerspelling, because I doubt that someone's name-sign is just a 'T'. That's really close to the sign for 'bathroom', which would be weird :)

<comment><USER9> Could be a home-sign, or a common shortcut. If two people are discussing two people who aren't physically present, using just their first initials could be a very obvious way of referring to them unambiguously without having to sign their full names.

<comment><USER5> Agree. It depends on context. A quick flash of 't' could also mean 'thanks', or 'th' if it was less obvious.

<comment><USER4> Have you seen that, or are you speculating?

<comment><USER5> I have experienced this in communication with deaf colleagues.

<comment><USER4> Can you describe why/how this would be used instead of the dictionary sign for THANKS or GOOD?

<comment><USER5> Here are the why/hows as I understand them:

1) This is an informal shorthand agreed between people who already know each other in the particular context of work, so there is no surprise or ambiguity. Outside this context, I would use, and expect to see the dictionary sign.

2) It functions as an 'in-group' slang, boosting cohesion and good will.

3) There is a certain humorousness in bending a symbol into an informal use. This is more pronounced in cases where the alternate meaning is irreverent or vulgar. I have no intention of expanding on the second point.

4) One does not have to be facing the SL speaker. The 't' symbol can be recognized from beside the person or even behind. Point 5 gives the rationale for this.

5) It can be communicated without changing focus or posture, allowing concentration on the task at hand without breaking the workflow.

6) Though 'thanks' is a brief gesture, 't' can be signed and understood even more quickly. Just a flash of meaning.

7) The sign for 'good', while it is also used to communicate thanks and has advantages 4,5,6 listed above, can be ambiguous, violating the principle of least surprise (see point 1 above). It is more generic, while 't' is specific.

<comment><USER4> Interesting. I'll ask around about that.

However, I think it's fair to say that a rudimentary system like this one is scripted, and is not tuned to the informal and complicated contexts you describe. You can argue that it's fair game to pre-program the device to emit "Lemelson" for #L, just as you might prepare an interpreter with proper nouns before a gig, but I think it goes against the spirit of the claims made in the video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a really novel approach, but IMHO a more well rounded solution is the one being developed at Microsoft Research using Kinect. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnkQyUo3134](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnkQyUo3134)

Nonetheless, great work by these students. I think their work is likely to have more applications in other areas where mimicking the movement of hands and fingers is an essential component.

</comment><comment><USER11> Congo was way ahead of its time. Amy good Gorilla! [http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KXlSFKLuzTA](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KXlSFKLuzTA)

<comment><USER12> There hasn't been a better movie with laser-mounted gorillas since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So now you can text entry without using a keyboard or your voice, good for rsi and good for faster entry, gesture based computing.

<comment><USER14> Learning sign language as an adult and using it a lot can give you really terrible RSI.

<comment><USER15> If you're getting RSI from sign language you're either an interpreter or over- producing.

In the case of the former, you're using the language differently than a typical user. Most people don't produce language in the same amounts or in the same ways that an interpreter will (that is; speaking/signing isn't most people's job). There are steps you can take to reduce RSI as an interpreter, including proper rest while working and supportive braces at night.

For the latter, it's possible to over-produce signs - basically "signing too hard." That can be painful, but it's correctable.

<comment><USER16> > Most people don't produce language in the same amounts that an interpreter > will

It isn't really because of how much they sign (deaf people don't typically get RSI from sign language), but rather because of _how_ they sign it. The signing is more precise and formal, the hands/arms are elevated more, and generally less "colloquial" than you would see in day-to-day sign language.

<comment><USER15> Volume of signing isn't totally unrelated - even if you presume 4 hours of signing time per day, most people don't speak/sign for that long an amount of time. It's more than a typical deaf person, any way you slice it.

But, you're right - the manner of signing has something to do with it as well, and I've amended my comment to reflect that. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A useful commentary from a linguist who studies ASL:

[http://katies.online/katiesblog/index.php/2016/04/27/yes- ive...](http://katies.online/katiesblog/index.php/2016/04/27/yes-ive-seen-the- signing-gloves/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Very cool, but it's not quite the revolution described by the inventors in the video - isn't it only one-way, assuming a lot of the deaf person's lip-reading ability?

<comment><USER3> If a deaf person can read lips they can probably also speak English.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure we understand each other. If the signing person can speak to employers etc. now via the device, they can only speak back with their mouths, or possibly speech recognition if well set up. The deaf person would have to be able to lip-read people who potentially don't know how to help them in that area. In other words, it might still be tricky to communicate.

<comment><USER3> You are right; I totally misunderstood you. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> some friends of mine translate sign language to text/speech using leap motion and/or kinect to figure out the best way for it. there is a startup that uses leap motion and an ipad but it looks very clunky to use. my friends are connecting to the user's smartphone for the translation work.

</comment><comment><USER20> I heard a similar work done by the students in Chinese University university of Hong Kong. But they make their own gloves, which cost about $75. [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh- CN&tl=en&js=y&p...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh- CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=zh- TW&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cse.cuhk.edu.hk%2Fv7%2Fb5%2Fabout%2Fachieve%2F84.html&edit- text=)

</comment><comment><USER21> I always find these cool, and then remember that I know someone who built a working (well working!) prototype of this in a weekend no almost no fanfare, from practically scratch.

<comment><USER22> with the caveat of not knowing your that someone in any way shape or form...

These are students, young/new engineers. This is impressive and should be lauded as should all attempts to push what an individual person is capable of. It may not be new or novel to everyone, but it is to them...basically, cut them a bit of slack.

<comment><USER21> The people I'm talking about were also students, (University Hackathon). A group of four, I want to say 2 sophomores and 2 freshmen.

This was 2-3 years ago, so machine learning wasn't advanced (and even now, getting a functional NN running and trained in a weekend isn't feasible) so they only had it recognize a small set of commands, but it could do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There's a longer and more informative story at UW Today:

[http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/04/12/uw- undergraduate-t...](http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/04/12/uw- undergraduate-team-wins-10000-lemelson-mit-student-prize-for-gloves-that- translate-sign-language/)

</comment><comment><USER24> With all the critiques in the comments so far, it is worth noting that this article simply says they won a contest for being promising inventors, not that the invention doesn't have flaws.

<comment><USER4> Did you watch the corresponding video

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Another example: [http://www.turtela.com/en/main](http://www.turtela.com/en/main)

</comment><comment><USER26> I would love a new text entry method using gloves or finger/toe trackers. For recording thoughts while on the go.

<comment><USER23> Have you tried a chorded keyboard?

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't translate sign language into text and speech!

<comment><USER5> Don't know why you got downvoted. Your comment is both admirably terse, and completely valid!

SL is an entirely distinct language. People who are fluent in multiple languages switch from linguistic context to another when they speak different languages. They don't translate from their native language. So it makes sense that you don't do this either.</comment></comment>


Zelda: The Wind Waker – Tech and Texture Analysis - <AUTHOR> http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104415 <comment><USER2> If you enjoyed this, there's also a good breakdown of the techniques used to build Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/170524064/The-Making-of-Shadow- of-...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/170524064/The-Making-of-Shadow-of-the- Colossus)

It goes into detail about things like how the inverse kinematics work, and rendering layers of translucent textured polygon shells for its fur effects since programmable shaders weren't possible on the hardware.

<comment><USER3> Could someone re-upload the PDF to a different site? Scribd on mobile has turned into an even worse Experts Exchange or Quora.

<comment><USER4> Please could you clarify? On Ios I had a single full screen thing that I had to cancel but I get the full PDF after that.

<comment><USER5> You got the full PDF without login? I got a HTML version with very poor quality pictures or asked to pay 9 dollars to create an account that can download the PDF.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fantastic! I remember reading this a couple of years ago and saying "huh, that's cool" but I make games now and it's much more interesting to read having had to write shaders and make similar sorts of compromises, I especially like the closest source shadows and semi-dynamic tassles on the spears.

On a less technical note it's amazing how going with the cell-shaded look has made the game age _so well_ even the original non-HD gamecube game still looks great today.

<comment><USER7> Kind of offtopic: As a professional of web development and operations with ~10 years of exp... Any ideas where I should start if I want to learn game development? I want to be able to create something by myself, like the Dwarf Fortress guys. Not sure if something with better graphics is even possible as a one man project.

Where else can I ask this question without being treated like a noob or a "gimme teh code plz" beggar?

<comment><USER6> I'm almost 100% sure others will disagree but I'd say start with Unity. The most important thing is getting something small done to give you a taste of what's involved and then you can dig deeper and develop _Opinions_ and eventually go pick a new engine/roll your own.

I definitely do _not_ recommend trying to roll your own engine at first because you'll never get a game done.

<comment><USER8> Actually as someone who also did mostly web development professionally before starting games as a hobby, I think it's better to start by coding a small game without any engine (like a shooter or a platformer) to fully understand the concepts like game loop, FPS, sprites, etc. Then only you can move to using an engine and you'll understand better what's going on.

That's especially true for someone who already knows programming, the answer would be different for someone who had no programming experience.

<comment><USER9> I'm taking tutorials for game making in SDL2 to expand my knowledge of C++, and because i've had an interest in game design for a while. I'm certainly learning a lot more than I ever did playing around with Game Maker..

<comment><USER10> Hey, don't knock it. I learnt to program in GML; to the point where I built a 3D game out of Game Maker, pretty much using the UI as a glorified level editor, rather than using its proper actions. Taught me heaps :)

Nowadays, I'm a web dev, but I build games in my spare time, and have lately been doing it with Canvas/Javascript. Just like SDL it takes some of the finicky bits out of your way, but is still pretty low level somewhat.

<comment><USER9> Game Maker is actually pretty nice now that it comes with a physics engine (although I was annoyed when it took me like an hour to reimplement a project it took me weeks to do in an older version because _everything was just there_ ) ... I just wish it used something other than GML for its scripting language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Zelda games have a lot of interesting implementation details. You might also be interested in Twilight Princess Eyes Breakdown: [http://www.benjones.us/twilight-princess-eyes- breakdown/](http://www.benjones.us/twilight-princess-eyes-breakdown/)

<comment><USER6> [http://old.troygilbert.com/2006/10/the-movement-and- attack-m...](http://old.troygilbert.com/2006/10/the-movement-and-attack- mechanics-of-the-legend-of-zelda/)

[http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/8336/how-was- coll...](http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/8336/how-was-collision- detection-handled-in-the-legend-of-zelda-a-link-to-the-past)

2D Zelda had some neat stuff too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I remember just stopping and watching the waves in awe. I'm glad I'm not the only one who was charmed by them

"this animated wave material is one of my all time favorite fx in game art"

<comment><USER13> Precisely the same kind of awe I was in. Even several years from then, I still listen to the WW theme songs as part of my morning ritual. Too bad I couldn't play games like this too much lately...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I forgot how pretty that game was. Shame it fell apart 2/3 of the way through, like so many games seem to do.

Incidentally if you like this kind of thing, and you haven't played Fez yet, then well, the rest of your sunday is sorted.

<comment><USER15> I thought it was pretty fantastic the whole way.

<comment><USER14> That ridiculous fedex quest at the end kinda took the shine off it for me. It felt really lazy.

<comment><USER15> The Triforce stuff or Ganon's Tower?

<comment><USER16> Almost certainly the triforce stuff, as even Nintendo realized how ridiculous it was, and nerfed it in the HD remake.

See [http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2013/08/the-wind-waker-hd- trifor...](http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2013/08/the-wind-waker-hd-triforce- quest-changes-detailed/).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems to me that the artistic portion of Wind Waker was given a little more attention than the technical one. The lack of instancing/batching when rendering grass or the lack of efficient culling outside, for instance, surely doesn't match the care with which the artists designed the lighting or splatted sea materials.

Still, great analysis.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure -- the game runs with a good frame rate in nearly all places (IIRC), so it doesn't seem like they needed the power that'd be freed up by better culling. Maybe they just didn't (prematurely?) optimize there and instead spent their time on some of the other little details from this post?

<comment><USER19> Exactly. PC games optimize like crazy because every optimization offers the chance to run on lower-end systems and sell a few more copies. Console games have a defined target, and as long as they run well on that target, they're done; optimizations only matter if the game doesn't hit the desired framerate on the one and only target device.

<comment><USER20> It's the other way around. PC games are rarely optimized to any significant degree because of the vast amount of different configurations out there, and PC gamers will just through hardware at the problem anyway. On a console, you know exactly what configuration all your players have, and any optimizations you do will benefit every one of them.

<comment><USER21> His point still holds: in consoles, any optimization past a certain threshold is wasted effort because your consumer does not get any additional value (the game runs equally as smooth and beautiful with or without the optimization), therefore, doesn't pay more.

<comment><USER20> It's only wasted in the short term. If you optimize so much that you have a lot of unused resources left, you just use them in your next game.

<comment><USER18> You get to make that case to the project lead. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Are these same kind of techniques applicable to mobile devices or is the hardware just not there yet? I've always wondered about whether console development and mobile development have converged or not yet.

<comment><USER23> Mobile devices have long-since surpassed the GameCube generation of consoles, and in some ways are past the Xbox 360/PS3 generation. Mobile devices have architecturally modern GPUs, and only lack in core count and clock speed (given the lower TDP than consoles).

<comment><USER20> And bandwidth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is pretty cool as a hobbyist game dev.</comment>


What do you think of this landing page? - <AUTHOR>

I am developing a new startup alone. The progress is very good so far. Will be launching it in a few months. Until I open up the private beta I am collecting emails from people who are interested in beta testing (like any normal startup these days). *I don't spam anyone!
So... Could you review my landing page? I would like to receive honest improvement tips and critics.
OK the site is http://www.chilledlime.com
(Further questions: what do you think of the idea? Do you like the landing page's simple design? Is the presentation on the right side good? [I don't have a big budget to pay for professional demo video])
Thanks very very much! ;) <comment><USER2> It's not bad, but overall it isn't "sexy". It seems not to communicate the feel/experience of the site you are working on. You may want to include elements that indicate debate (either as abstractions, or stylistic images/graphics). Or if there is something particularly special about how you are enabling debates, try to capture that in in the landing page.

For example, we have more of a coming-soon type page for now, but you can still get an idea of how it's meant to evoke more of the feel/emotion of the site we are working on. It's a bit "artsy" which is kind of the point. There aren't many details, but the design reflects the spirit of the site. See what I mean: <http://stradavinci.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> It looks nice, but I would suggest adding some color. Having just plain black text (with some green) on a white background is kind of boring and doesn't get the hype of your startup across. This landing page doesn't make me "excited" to put in my email.

Try adding a cool background image and/or more color.

Take a look this link for more ideas: [http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best- examples-of-stealth-s...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-of- stealth-startup-landing-pages)

Hope this helps :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, thanks very much for the awesome feedback. I am now in a redesign progress :)</comment></comment>


Amazon stores Alexa transcripts indefinitely - <AUTHOR> https://www.iafrikan.com/2019/07/03/amazon-alexa-privacy-keeps-recordings-indefinitely/ <comment><USER2> What's the news here? The same happens with Google and Microsoft. You can even check on their websites and see ALL your audios on Google Assistant and Cortana. [https://myactivity.google.com](https://myactivity.google.com)

Even your dictations on Windows is there too (Win+H). [https://account.microsoft.com/privacy/activity- history?view=...](https://account.microsoft.com/privacy/activity- history?view=voice)

<comment><USER3> FWIW you can turn off historical recording of e.g. voice activity on the Activity Controls section of the Google My Activity page, along with a bunch of other things.

<comment><USER4> Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…

Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.

Mr Prosser: That's the display department.

Arthur: With a torch.

Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.

Arthur: So had the stairs.

Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn't you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vincent-toups I'm tempted to feel that if you are dumb enough to put one of these things in your house, you deserve to have your privacy obliterated by a huge private corporation who is as likely to hand it over to a government as they are to sell it to advertisers or worse.

I don't believe that, but it is shocking to me that anyone would want one of these things.

<comment><USER5> So does that mean that everyone "dumb enough" to have a smartphone deserves to have their privacy obliterated by the manufacturer of that phone?

And of course anyone within earshot of any of those devices also deserves to have their privacy obliterated, even if they themselves don't own one?

I really don't understand why people don't get the utility in these things. They're useful. Being able to control lights in the house, control the TV, set timers and reminders, listen to music and the news, manage grocery lists, and more are all super useful.

I have Google homes, and I (and my family) use them on a daily basis, they're useful. That doesn't mean we forgo all privacy, that doesn't mean we deserve any violations, that doesn't mean we are okay with information being collected against our will.

My family and I are comfortable with the tradeoffs that the device makes, we trust that the company won't break a ton of laws and won't be "listening" when they explicitly say it's not. We are able to delete information we don't want Google to keep, and we are even able to set the account to automatically delete all recordings after a specific period of time if we want. And we trust that the company isn't just lying when they very explicitly say that when you delete something it is actually deleted.

I also support more laws and regulations around this, what they can store, how long they can store it, what they can do with it, and mandated ways of controlling your information.

You may have different priorities, and that's okay, but I absolutely hate this idea that people who want the benefits of these devices deserve anything, and the implication that only those who don't care about privacy have them. And a token "I don't believe that" doesn't negate the sentiment you wrote right above it. I'm an adult, I'm able to make a conscientious decision to trade some of my privacy in a controlled way to get benefits from it, and that is no more wrong than you wanting to protect your own privacy.

<comment><USER6> None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe.

Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to say to the room "pick a random song and play it loud" requires fiber on ocean floors and huge buildings running servers and the rest of it.

 _We 're being socialized into thinking privacy is an impediment to progress._

It is just a very bad idea to create a turn-key surveillance society and hope and cross your fingers it never gets used.

<comment><USER7> You are downvoted but I believe you are essentially correct. It is ridiculous to send voice data all over the globe to be interpreted and send back to IOT devices. Unnecessary and certainly not elegant, since mic and device are most often in very close proximity.

Good for learning to analyze voice on the other hand, but your point is still valid. We will get a compressed voice service that easily can be held in a small device at some point, that makes this ridiculous data exchange unnecessary.

<comment><USER8> At I/O Google announced on-device transcription and NLP:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LQX9cLnZk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LQX9cLnZk)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To be fair, they make it easy to review and delete past recordings here: [https://www.amazon.com/alexaprivacysettings](https://www.amazon.com/alexaprivacysettings)

<comment><USER10> I really doubt the recording is actually deleted from all of their servers. Wouldn't be surprised when a few years from now there is another news item about how they accidentally kept these logs in backups or how they were shared with law enforcement or ad companies.

<comment><USER11> > kept these logs in backups

Is that unreasonable?

I mean, I cannot possibly expect _myself_ to go through my backups and delete a folder from everything, down to the multi-year incremental.

Once you start tampering with a backup, it stops being a backup.

<comment><USER12> This can be done by encrypting each backed-up item and forgetting the key for deleted items that shouldn't be restorable from backup. You still need to decide how long the keys should be kept, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why not delete by default or after 30 days or something more user friendly...

<comment><USER14> Yeah I wonder why would they not voluntary delete all of that data?

<comment><USER15> Why delete something if there might be the slightest chance of it being useful in the future, and there is no downside (storage, reputation, legal)?

I assume storage of this data for them is nearly 0 cost, reputation is not an issue as most >99% of people seem to simply don't care about privacy and there is probably no legal limit.

<comment><USER16> "no legal limit."

There is in the EU. Keeping data indefinitely is illegal. Expert opinion varies on how long you can keep it, many think you're save with 12 months, most think 36 months is too long.

<comment><USER17> If it's personal data. A transcript in itself is not personal data unless an individual can be identified or it is linked to an individual.

So "Alexa, order more beer" in itself can be kept for as long as you want. The audio recording may be a different matter because of voice recognition.

As to how long personal data may be kept, well in the UK one can sue on a civil matter for up to 6 years so there is a good argument that anything related to the service you provide and in relation to which you might be sued should be kept for 6 years. I expect it's similar in other countries.

<comment><USER13> According to the article the transcript is directly associated with the users. It's some of the most personal PII there can be in my opinion.

One day it will all be compromised or misused, because that's what history teaches us.

<comment><USER17> > According to the article the transcript is directly associated with the > users

They just need to destroy that link and can then keep the transcripts for as long as they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Do you use any open source Alexa alternative? If yes, please share your experience.

<comment><USER19> I set up a [https://snips.ai/](https://snips.ai/) raspberry pi, got it to respond to its wake word

Then realised it was going to take like 6+ hours (if not days) to get it to play music and set timers, so gave up on it

Ecosystem might be more mature now, when i looked there weren't any good spotify apps you could get for it

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Something something GDPR?

</comment><comment><USER21> It will be interesting to see how this plays out wrt GDPR

<comment><USER22> It's not that interesting unfortunately. You can physically delete all of your recordings at any time at [https://www.amazon.com/alexaprivacysettings](https://www.amazon.com/alexaprivacysettings)

All of that data is wiped when you initiate a delete request under GDPR.

<comment><USER21> What about privacy by default?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> After reading this thread I really think we need more people like Richard Stallman in the world. "Embrace and educate", you'll say. No, people don't care. Let them do what they will. I will not participate in the destruction of privacy. However this, to me, isn't even the scariest part. The real scary stuff is when you realize what this data is most certainly being used for.

Remember when the CIA gave unknowing citizens LSD? Remember the unclassified docs that revealed their intentions to be able to basically warp a mind, and control it at their will? Well, today, we hand them the data for deep examination. Our emotions, intelligence, etc. will be revealed by a quick scan of our face. Just imagine the databases these government agencies have available. I imagine labs filled with scientists and engineers trying to _crack_ the data.

It sounds conspiratorial, but come on. Imagine if you held humanities brain within your hands. Would you not study it, trying to figure out how to make it work more to your personal needs? Or maybe you'll tell yourself it's to make society better, to make it safer.

Just a note: I'm not accusing the CIA exactly of doing this. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that somebody is out there doing this (the CIA seems most reasonable). Sorry for rambling, I've been awake for 24 hours (is there irony in that?)</comment>


UK executive knocks back Govt projects that don't consider FOSS - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/31/government_closed_source_kicked_back/

<comment><USER3> I wonder what proportion of the government IT spend went on licenses - <USER2> suspect the real crimes were the billions paid to consulting companies during the Labour years.

In fact, if I was _really_ cynical (which I am when it comes to how HMG spends our money) I might wonder if the use of open-source software might be pushed by consulting companies as an opportunity to increase their share of spend, rather than decreasing actual project costs.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that is cynical. As a consultant, I push open-source software because I like working with it.

This is the first time I've heard someone suggesting that it might be an opportunity to increase their share of spend, but ... you have a good point. However, it's not automatic that reduced software costs result in higher consulting fees. The government might have more money in general to spend on projects, but that's a good thing for everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> To put this into context, open source was previously deigned not acceptable in large swathes of government due to procurement and liability problems. HMG civil servants have mostly developed an inate and enviable skill in blame deflection, non-answering and political maneuvering mostly due to the politicisation of their day jobs. It's an odd world out there.

So by forcing them to consider FOSS this is the government's attempt to put it right. If they just told people that FOSS was now acceptable, people in some parts of HMG would still use closed source software in case the wind changes again.

What's bad is that departments appear to be excessively pressured into open source, which is not a good idea. It's important to go for the best tool for the job and the things you can manage the most effectively, which might not always be open source.

<comment> DanI-S > What's bad is that departments appear to be excessively pressured into open > source, which is not a good idea. It's important to go for the best tool for > the job and the things you can manage the most effectively, which might not > always be open source.

That wasn't the impression I got from the article:

 _"We believe open source isn't properly considered when we are doing IT. Our objective is not to have a target for open source in government – a year on year increase. Our objective is to best explore the opportunities out there. Sometimes that might be open source. At the moment, we believe we are missing out on the opportunities."_

Based on that quote, it sounds like they are taking a surprisingly well considered approach. Is this not the case in some departments?

<comment><USER5> I can only talk about my own experiences, but given the pushes for cuts in costs open source is now being touted around some places as being the way to go, regardless of best tool for the job. As I said, HMG is a very strange place and it's big too, so not everything will be the same, but I've seen a couple of projects in the past 12 months where people have come back and challenged the decision to go with things like Oracle DB versus MySQL and so on. Once you're getting accused of flagrant spending (worse than death in some bits of HMG) on licences, you tend to over-cut.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I work for the civil service in the UK and previosuly the oppositte was true. When looking for new software solutions FOSS was not appropriate because "the tender process could not assess free software".

</comment><comment><USER7> In Australia, all IT tender responses must include a FOSS option to be considered valid [http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/strategy-and- governan...](http://www.finance.gov.au/e-government/strategy-and- governance/docs/2010-004_AGIMO_Circular_Open_Source_Software_Policy.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER8> The word "executive" is confusing at best in the submission title, because we don't have the "three branches" mythology in the UK. Maybe just simplify it to "UK govt knocks back projects ...", if you don't want to get into the details of the Cabinet Office's rôle?</comment>


Ask HN: Best trivia/novel topic books? - <AUTHOR> Hi
Just saw "Sniff Petrol's wonderfully interesting book of boring car facts: A review" in Ars Technica [0] and remembered how I enjoyed Nine Pints (a book about blood, [1]) and The Box (history of shipping containers, [2]).
I would love to hear about the best books you've read that cover some interesting topic!
Thanks!
[0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/05/if-you-like-weird-car-trivia-youll-love-sniff-petrols-new-book/,
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38232376-nine-pints, [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/316767.The_Box <comment><USER3> Listed in no particular order: Title, author - publisher (topic) Most Secret War, R.V.Jones - Coronet Books (W.W.2 tech) Light Years, Brian Clegg - <USER2> (about light) Faraday, James Hamilton - Harper Collins (biography) The Code Breakers, David Kahn - Sphere (cryptography)</comment>


Where is Everyone? A history and future of information technologies - <AUTHOR> http://www.baekdal.com/articles/Management/market-of-information/

<comment><USER2> I found the odd scaling on the X-axis very misleading. In reality, there is very little data on most of the late entrants -- they could be historical blips for all we know. But maybe it doesn't matter, because there doesn't seem to be any data behind the graph anyhow.</comment>


Copyright Infringement != Theft - <AUTHOR> http://20bits.com/2008/06/02/copyright-infringement-is-not-theft/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure what the point of this particular semantic debate is. It's not theft. Ok. It's still wrong, it's still harmful, and it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw.

<comment><USER3> _It's still wrong_

Really? For the majority of human history, it hasn't been.

 _it's still harmful_

It is? To whom? Surely not to people enjoying music - infringing copyright has made more people listen to more music.

 _it's still totally within the purview of a reasonable government to regulate or outlaw_

In a government based on the US Constitution, only if such regulation and law "promotes the progress of useful arts".

<comment><USER4> _Really? For the majority of human history, it hasn't been._

For the majority of human history, there has been but a tiny fraction of copyrightable material compared to what has existed over the past, say, 200 years.

 _It is? To whom? Surely not to people enjoying music - infringing copyright has made more people listen to more music._

It's harmful to the producers. It's not cheap or easy to put together a professional music recording. Producers wish to both recover the costs of production, and have funds available to live on and produce more.

 _In a government based on the US Constitution, only if such regulation and law "promotes the progress of useful arts"._

Yes. If you allow the producers to profit from their works, then they will have both the funds and more motiviation to continue producing more.

U.S. copyright law began with discussions between educator Noah Webster and lawyer Daniel Webster. Noah had completed new textbooks for use in the public school system, which _he had based_ on existing works. Nevertheless, his books were new productions, and he wanted to have control over how they were copied; he wanted to be able to profit from the production of his works. (Noah was never a very rich man, by the way; don't get the idea he was insanely wealthy and scavaging for more.)

Daniel Webster agreed wholeheartedly, that authors should have the right to how their works are copied and should get royalty payments _for a limited time_. He claimed this was so obvious it was like "natural law"... as obvious as laws against murdering and theft.

Some people in recent history (e.g., the RIAA and other big corporations) have taken copyright law to absurd and abusive levels, and that is wrong. But the basic principles of it -- to allow the author of a work rights over who copies it and rights to limited royalty payments -- are _not_ absurd and _do_ contribute to the furthering of more and better works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm having flashbacks to Slashdot... circa 2000. At least back then we had Napster to talk about.

Durn kids, get offa my lawn!

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the last example is a little off. It compares taking a friend's book to simply copying it, but the friend presumably does not own the copyright to the book.

The idea of copyright extends beyond money. By being able to freely copy an artist's work the artist loses control of his creation. Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, did not license out his characters for lunchboxes or plush toys because he felt it would hurt the artistic value of the comic, even though he could have made much more money licensing it. He was able to prevent licensing because he owned the right to copy his creations.

<comment><AUTHOR> As is his right to do. But violating that right is not theft, which involves depriving someone of their property.

<comment><USER2> And your point is exactly _what_?

<comment><AUTHOR> In two sentences:

Copyright and theft occupy different legal, historical, and philosophical spheres. Therefore arguing against copyright infringement because it is a kind of theft is fallacious.

<comment><USER2> You're right. Copyright infringement is trivial to argue against as a form of free riding. Does your blog post make it in any way easier to reconcile Watterson's rights with the RIAA's demands and the Free Culture people?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, ok, now we're on the same page.

Copyright was created because the old system of guild-based monopolies collapsed and authors demanded that the Parliament deal with the influx of cheaply copied books devaluing their works.

That is, the basis for copyright law is in economics and politics, not morality. Passing off copyright as theft creates an emotionally charged environment where rational discussion is difficult.

I intentionally avoided the larger argument because it's about copyright-as- such and how it applies in the digital age. There are people talking about it who are far smarter than I am.

I'm also intentionally _not_ discussing my opinions about the status quo.

<comment><USER2> You're off the rails again. "Theft" isn't what makes it charged. "Crime" is. Plenty of free riding problems are crimes. There's no "economics" versus "morality" issue at play here. Free riding is immoral.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insult!

My point was intentionally narrow and I don't really think it's necessary for me to repeat it.

Whether copyright infringement is "free riding" and whether or not "free riding" is immoral will have to wait for another day.

Cheers, Jesse

<comment><USER2> Sorry that I managed to insult you. Wasn't my goal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I created this in response to Matt Maroon's essay on IP: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=207125></comment>


Office 365 Login Issues - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Office365Status/status/982191898902212615 <comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to do some work today. Now I have multiple people complaining on Slack.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks fixed now</comment>


SpaCy v1.0: Deep Learning with custom pipelines and Keras - <AUTHOR> https://explosion.ai/blog/spacy-deep-learning-keras <comment><USER2> I use Spacy quite a lot for work and pleasure. I also regularly use (deep breath) NLTK/CoreNLP/OpenNLP/Rosette/OpenIE, and I've written bits and pieces in the area, so I have some perspective.

When I want to do something, I always use Spacy first. It's the 95% solution - it does 95% of the things you are ever likely to do. The only downside is that I haven't worked out how to avoid the slow startup time.

NLTK has more stuff. Some of it is crap, but some is useful. For example, if you want WordNet then NTLK is an easy way to get it.

CoreNLP gives you high quality POS tagging and named entity extraction. It's a Java library (but can run as a REST service) so that is good if you are on the JVM.

OpenNLP.. has an Apache license.

Rosette is expensive, and tuned entirely differently to any other text processing library. Has great multi lingual support.

OpenIE is by far the best open information extraction toolkit.

Obviously this misses the 1000 pound gorilla: Syntax/Parsey McParseface. This isn't exactly trivial to run yet outside of Docker. Slowly getting my stuff together on this.

<comment><USER3> May I ask what kind of work you do and what kind of NLP projects on your free time?

<comment><USER2> Work is running a "data science" R&D program across a few universities and an engineering team.

Fun is lots of stuff. I have a question-answering thing which I'm slowly making progress on. I've written various (old) open source text things which still seem to be used. I do Kaggle. I wrote a contextual advertising server for a cycling website I ran (and ended up licensing some of the tech). I have a vague home research project trying to combine unstructured knowledge with structured knowledge graphs. Probably other stuff I've forgotten about.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! I've been playing with Spacy lately. I've a product idea that requires NLP and I'm unfamiliar with NLP research and techniques. The idea itself is rather complex to implement, so I'd like to have a couple of interesting toy/side projects to hone my skills first. I hadn't thought Kaggle, that could provide a few good projects for understanding NLP tech better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What i love about spacy is their dependency parsing visualization tool[0]. Its so much better than what Stanford offers.

Other than that, I find Spacy's philosophy of "one (best) way of doing everything" a bit stifling. I don't think there is a "best" parser or "best" named entity recognizer. A certain parser may perform very well in a domain (for example, Tweeboparser [1] performs well with tweets) and perform very badly in another. This is true for almost everything in NLP, and NLTK embraces this diversity quite well. This is why NLTK is my go to tool when I want to do something cutting edge in NLP.

[0] [https://demos.explosion.ai/displacy/](https://demos.explosion.ai/displacy/) [1] [https://github.com/ikekonglp/TweeboParser](https://github.com/ikekonglp/TweeboParser)

<comment><AUTHOR> I definitely agree that the same weights won't be optimal for different domains. If you need to parse tweets, you should have a tweet-trained model. The tweet model probably shouldn't be thinking about Jane Austen novels. We want to open a model store where you can buy language and domain specific models.

I think 99% of the time there's one best algorithm, and even one best implementation of it. It's the weights, and sometimes the features, that need to vary.

Finally — I love displaCy too. Ines does great work :). Have you seen that we open-sourced this recently? It's now very easy to run locally, and connect up to the model you're developing. You can use this with any other parser, too. [https://explosion.ai/blog/displacy-js-nlp- visualizer](https://explosion.ai/blog/displacy-js-nlp-visualizer)

<comment><USER4> I am so glad that you guys open sourced displaCy. I would love to give it a spin on my system. Kudos for all the great work you are doing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's also the python library Polyglot, featuring NLP for many languages (depending on the task, from 15 to 135 languages):

[https://polyglot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html](https://polyglot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Very cool! I'm familiar with NLTK, but not SpaCy. It looks like the speed benefits of SpaCy could help greatly in processing large volumes of unstructured text.

I'm curious what type of feedback you've gotten from users that have migrated from NLTK to SpaCy.

<comment><USER7> I'm not the author but can speak to some of this. Some amount of this was answered by the author himself in his blog post "Dead Code Should Be Buried – Why I Didn't Contribute to NLTK"[1].

While there are portions on NLTK that are useful, it suffers from having too many things under the hood and a lack of consistent maintenance. Many of them are superglued external libraries while others have not been maintained or have never been made to work well with other parts of NLTK.

The biggest example of this was that, for some time, it wasn't certain how the NLTK part of speech tagger was trained[2]. While that has been remedied, the remedy uses part of speech tagging code inspired via earlier work by the author of spaCy[3][4].

spaCy has been made from the ground up to support more modern deep learning features (easy integration of Keras is quite cool but I'm actually meaning the default inclusion of word vectors which has existed since early spaCy) while having a consistent and clean API that covers many sane use cases.

The API is highly Pythonic but the underlying performance critical components are written in Cython, meaning very few parsers are actually able to beat spaCy in speed (especially when using CPU and not GPU). Regarding speed, multi-threading is also a relatively trivial process - Cython releases the GIL around the syntactic parser. As a reference to speed, they used it to tag and parse every Reddit comment from 2015 to then generate "sense2vec"[5] at over 100,000 words per second using 4 threads.

Finally, and most importantly, spaCy compares to and remains competitive with state of the art results and all of it remains under an MIT license.

As you might have guessed, I'm a fan :)

Note: I was in the same NLP lab as Matthew Honnibal for my undergraduate so will admit positive bias ;) This was long before spaCy was a thing however - he was simply a fascinating and interesting guy for other reasons ^_^

[1]: [https://explosion.ai/blog/dead-code-should-be- buried](https://explosion.ai/blog/dead-code-should-be-buried)

[2]: [https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/1063](https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/1063)

[3]: [https://github.com/nltk/nltk/pull/1143](https://github.com/nltk/nltk/pull/1143)

[4]: [https://explosion.ai/blog/part-of-speech-pos-tagger-in- pytho...](https://explosion.ai/blog/part-of-speech-pos-tagger-in-python)

[5]: [https://explosion.ai/blog/sense2vec-with- spacy](https://explosion.ai/blog/sense2vec-with-spacy)</comment></comment>


GoSquared launches new dashboard for real-time analytics - <AUTHOR> http://www.gosquared.com/4/

<comment><USER2> I've been using tools like this for several years and I can say I watched the video, tried the online demo, and then looked at the prices and the pricepoint turned me away immediately.

I left woopra because it was too expensive as well and now use chartbeat ($10/mo for up to 1000 concurrent), reinvigorate ($10/mo w/ coupon for 1 million pageviews (though it doesn't actually limit you there I don't think), $20 otherwise I think), and statcounter (free).. oh and google analytics does real time now too for free.

</comment><comment><USER3> Really impressed with the new design and tools provided by Version 4. Just keeps getting better and better!

</comment><comment><USER4> V4 is a really nice evolution of the product. Can't wait for new widgets.</comment>


Show HN: Created a Birthday wisher website to deliver gift on a friend's bday - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/boudhayan-dev/Birthday <comment><USER2> Nice idea, UI looks great as well.</comment>


An interview with Margaret Hamilton - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/13/margaret-hamilton-computer-scientist-interview-software-apollo-missions-1969-moon-landing-nasa-women <comment><USER2> > Also, what became apparent with Apollo – though it is not how it worked – is > that it is better to define your system up front to minimise errors, rather > than producing a bunch of code that then has to be corrected with patches on > patches. It's a message that seems to have gone unheeded – in this respect, > software today is still built the way it was 50 years ago.

Possibly the most useful part of this interview for working programmers. If you really want things to be bug-free, _design_ them to be bug-free -- don't just squash bugs until you think you've probably found most of them.

(Which approach you take depends on how much you care about bugs versus engineering cost, but there _are_ multiple approaches. You can make reliable software if you're willing to put in the effort.)

<comment><USER3> Designing a bug free software to meet requirements that are ever-changing is hardly a solved problem.

If you specify a system correctly upfront it is indeed possible to make something very very reliable. But a big part of building nowadays software is requirement gathering as you build (or worse - deploy it) nobody knows what it should do beforehand, and in a lot of times it is impossible (or very very expensive) to know.

The whole thing called XP and agile came out as a way to deal with it.

I can still remember the time when devs battled hard to make business people / clients provide requirements up front - the waterfall model. The Apollo program was brought up constantly as a proof that this is the way.

And then we went "fuck it its never going to happen, lets design a process that recognizes this and allows for _some_ sanity"

What NASA used was the latest iteration of a process that has been in use for hundreds of years, quite well understood. Agile and the like are still in its infancy but I think it has a lot more potential for evolution. And its more recognizing what is that wishful thinking of what could be if human nature was different.

And its not like waterfall is banned or anything - you can practice it to your hearts content, for some domains this is even a good idea (implementing protocols comes to mind, financial, medical etc.).

We'll see who goes to market, gathers business intelligence and answers the customer's needs faster/cheaper/better.

<comment><USER4> It's also important to keep in mind that most of the projects that NASA works on/worked on like Apollo 11 aren't just software projects. They involve massive scales of cutting edge hardware that is developed by independent teams and needs to come together, operate in extreme environments and physical constraints, and all be complete and tested and ready for a relatively narrow launch window. Not to undersell the importance of the software component or the skills and talent of those who developed it, but it's usually only one part of a massive effort. Waterfall with intense requirements gathering and up-front design makes a lot more sense in that context. It's very different than developing software to run on commodity hardware to meet potential needs of a wide range of potential users who may have conflicting needs that they don't even understand themselves. In that case, time to market, extensibility, and the ability to iterate with actual user feedback and production data become much more dominant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Though I don't envy [Bouman] having to contend with the internet and all the > vitriol it can spread. In some ways, things are worse for women now.

That made me sad to read. I suspect she's probably right too.

<comment><USER6> Is there potentially any data that can change your mind and show that women in 2019 are having a signficantly better life than in 1969?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some people believe software cannot be truly bug-free. We have living proof that that's not true. Techniques exist for engineering mission-critical software. All software should be held to a higher standard, tbh.

<comment><USER8> The challenge for most of software is that people dont know what other people want or there is too much change, so people just flow with it.

It is more of a people problem and market problem than a technical one. I long for formal methods and rigorous design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Featuring Lauren Hamilton, Apollo software Q.E. :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> NASA's Apollo 11 Mission Report [https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf](https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf)

Don Eyles' account [https://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html](https://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html)

Extract from Lunar Surface Journal [https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-fm.html](https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-fm.html)</comment>