Sex Is a Coping Mechanism - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/sex-is-a-coping-mechanism <comment><USER2> That is blatantly false. Sex speeds up evolution exponentially with population size. With sex, each beneficial mutation can spread across the species even after arising only once. With asexual reproduction, beneficial mutations are confined to that particular strain. Sex is enormously beneficial for the ability to evolve and adapt quickly. This has been confirmed by mathematical models.

<comment><USER3> You're misunderstanding how gene flow works. Consider one individual with one advantageous mutation that has 1000 offspring. In an asexual organism all 1000 will contain the mutation (minus any small frequency of the mutation spontaneously reverting). In a sexual organism only 500 will carry the advantage.

<comment> guard-of-terra This individual invariably carries ten of disadvantageous mutations too. It will pass all ten to offspring when reproducing asexually, but only five of them on average to every sexually-produced offspring, and a dozen will only get 2 or 3 such bad mutations.

This arithmetic becomes ugly fast for asexual reproduction.

<comment><USER3> Again, it's the exact opposite. In an asexual species, a disadvantageous mutation will be flushed from the population very quickly, as those without the mutation will outcompete those with. You'll never get an individual with ten disadvantages.

On the other hand, in a sexually reproducing organism, a disadvantageous mutation can be masked if recessive, and selective pressure will only remove homozygotes from the population. The end result is that harmful mutations can stick around for a long time, and even accumulate in individuals.

<comment> guard-of-terra "a disadvantageous mutation will be flushed from the population very quickly"

In asexual case, an individual with one advantageous mutation and ten slightly disadvantageous will be flushed out.

In sexual case, such individual will produce some survivable offspring and the advantageous gene has good chance of flourishing in the population.

<comment><USER3> Correct. Sex is advantageous over the _long_ term. This is not up for debate. The question is how to compensate for the considerable costs in the _short_ term so that sexual organisms are not immediately outcompeted by asexual organisms.

<comment> guard-of-terra Asexual organisms can outcompete some part of population, but doubtfully all of it. And their competitive advantage shrinks as their numbers grow, due to clone interference.

A lot of insects can reproduce asexually but they are also capable of sexual reproduction. Ones who are not eventually die off.

<comment><USER3> You're assuming that a population of asexual organisms was mixed with a population of sexual organisms. In reality, asexual reproduction came first, so the inability of asexual reproduction to overcome a large contingent of sexual organisms is irrelevant.

And yes, optional sex is almost certainly how sexual reproduction arose. Even today I'd wager there are more facultatively sexual organisms than obligate sexual. That's a non-sequiter, though, as even optional sex would be bred out of a population if it could not show a benefit in a small number of generations.

<comment><USER2> Imagine three populations of desert plants. One survives by growing longer roots and storing more water. Another has roots that can extract water from dryer soil. The third is adapted by breathing during the night and losing less water.

It's obvious how a sexual plant that is able to obtain the beneficial mutations from the other two populations would gain a major and immediate advanage.

<comment><USER3> _We all agree that sexual reproduction is advantageous over a long time scale._ The question is what about a _short_ time scale. Even with selective breeding, it'll be at least two (and more likely 3-5) generations before you could get all three advantageous traits in the same plant. With random partnering as would happen in the wild it could easily take an order of magnitude longer.

This paper presents a hypothesis that explains how sexual reproduction could be more advantageous than asexual reproduction _after one generation_. This is what makes it novel and new.

<comment><USER2> How more short term would you want it to be? The trait doesn't have to be advantageous every single generation in order to spread.

It's two generation with or without selective breeding. The first generation will have individuals with three or four beneficial mutations, the second will have some with five. (assuming the traits are dominant)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> By "coping mechanism" I originally clicked to read how it helps us cope with the crushing reality that is life...

<comment><USER5> That's what alcohol and Netflix are for :p

<comment> _-__--- that + chill = more sex?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"Until recently, science has basically ignored the fact that we are all walking around with two genomes in every cell," Dowling says, "that of our own nuclear genome, and that of the mitochondria."_

Really? I was taught about mitochondria in considerable detail as part of the biology part of my undergrad science degree & mitochondria have clearly been studied pretty intensively. That's not to say that there aren't gaps in our knowledge or new things to learn, but the idea that the mitochondria have just been ignored is clearly untrue.

I guess some researchers feel it necessary to talk up their own research though - it's a labrat eat labrat world out there.

<comment><USER7> In my high school biology class, which I would assume is still the highest level of biology most people complete, mitochondrial DNA wasn't even mentioned. Many high school level science courses are rife with disinformation.

<comment><USER8> I definitely was taught quite a bit about mitochondria in grade 10 (Canadian) high school biology, in the early 90s. We were even told about at-the-time- speculative-now-accepted theories that mitochondria were the result of a primitive "capture" of a prokaryotic cell by the first early proto-eukaryotes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a typo in the title. Sex is a Copying Mechanism. We just fail to produce good copies, since the mechanism is broken.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is part of a greater dehumanization[1] agenda by the parts of the US media industry. I don't have a conspiracy theory about why this is or who is behind it, but it's been going on for a few years now. Once your reticular activating system's habituation filter has opened up on something like this, you cannot not notice such articles when they pop up.

I mean, click-bait or not, the idea of referring to an innate part of the biology of animal life as a "coping mechanism" automatically leads to a form of nihilism.

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

<comment><USER11> I get the same general feeling, and I try not to be too paranoid about it.

I think it has a lot to do with the instrumentality capitalism wants from its participants -- and we seem to want to use science to make us better cogs rather than better humans. Its a pretty old idea stemming from the industrial revolution -- it just seems that today we're more 'loosely coupled' into the system which gives us just enough of an illusion of freedom. e.g. you can choose a job, but you can't choose not to have a job, you can speak freely, but you'll be monitored etc.

Because of this I have recently had a resurgence of volunteerism and religious soul seeking. I've found it refreshing that these two arenas seek earnestly to humanize through giving.

<comment><USER12> Volunteerism and giving is great, but religion's purpose is to co-opt and channel these altruistic impulses to make people believe that good things can only come from religion (historically linked to the state). You still see this brainwashing today, with people believing that atheists cannot be moral, or that religion makes them a better person. In fact, the most religious are frequently the most immoral. Look at the widespread sexual abuse sanctioned by the Catholic Church, today and throughout history.

As an aside, OPs conspiracy theory about the article titles sounds really silly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> While it is definitely too soon to consider this hypothesis even close to settled, it's not as far out as it might seem at first glance. Indeed, what we evolutionary biologists have always said is that the cost of sex is compensated for by robustness in the face of evolutionary pressure.

All this group is saying, in essence, is that instead of that pressure coming in the form of infrequent external events (plagues, floods, asteroids, etc.), it is present for every generation in the form of dealing with mitochondria that don't quite fit any longer. An interesting idea, to be sure.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Mitochondria are purely a maternal gift. Sperm do not pass them on; only a > mother's egg does.

Some species' sperm do pass mitochondria successfully. Human sperm passes mitochondrial dna, but the egg kills it off.

<comment><USER14> I think you meant the reverse Re: humans.

I'm interested in this though: do you know any examples off the top of your head where the male passes on mitochondria? I thought the primary reasoning is that sperm is little more than DNA with a tail and engine attached. (poetically speaking)

<comment><USER13> What reverse?

No, I don't know.

<comment><USER14> Ah...I misunderstood your comment and I misunderstood how it works. I thought human sperm had no mitochondria. Turns out that is dramatically not the case, but the sperm's mitochondria is killed off by the egg, and that's exactly what you said.

I had thought you were saying the sperm had mitochondria and the egg killed THE EGGs mitochondria off.

My mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Another reason why sexual reproduction is efficient is that it enables division of labour.

A mother needs to provide a complete eco-system (uterus) for the baby to live and grow which affects even the hormonal system.

A man doesn't need this, so he can use this energy or "program space" in his genome for other things.

It's one of Dawkins theses in his superb book "The selfish gene" [1] where he basically reduces evolution to game theory (without explicity saying so).

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

<comment><USER5> That extends to the genders' respective role in society as well, at least in humans - men being the hunters or soldiers and dying a lot, that is.

On the other hand though, in e.g. lions, it's the females that go out hunting the most. I'm not sure what the logic is there. Maybe the males die a lot in fights for dominance and territory so they get to be lazy?

<comment><USER16> Up until recently, women died a lot… giving birth. (It really comes to life when you read about history and queens or the classic plays and fairytales where there's so many remarried older men)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Misread this as "Sex is a Copying Mechanism". Thought "duh!".

</comment><comment><USER18> _All that is probably true, but the thesis has one flaw. While the benefits of sexual reproduction tend to be subtle and become evident only over many generations, its costs are heavy and immediate._

But isn't the "flaw" already taken care of: the heavy and immediate costs are very much compensated by the pleasure and high stimulus which are as immediate as anyone who has gone through puberty knows. (And which are not unknown in the non-human part of the animal world either.)

</comment><comment><USER19> Makes me think of the god meme, which reads "makes sex great -- forbids it".

</comment><comment><USER20> Sex and death are both metabolic hacks. They offset one another in the bioenergetic arms race tripped by the costs of complexity. Think about it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Sex is how to hotfix mitochondria.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra "Ask any biologist—sex seems like a waste"

Stopped reading after this. If it's straw man, it's an especially stupid one. If she is serious, that's not even funny.

<comment><USER22> Perhaps you should continue reading the article to find out.

<comment><USER23> Welcome to the internet, where people only read half the story and make up opinions :P

<comment><USER24> Off topic.I am student and in last year I felt this drawback.I spent almost all of my day reading internet (scientific material, watching courses).But recently I can feel internet makes person a shallow, without deep understanding about topics.(I don't know how to express clearly). I recently completely switched from internet to reading exclusively book/papers.

<comment><USER25> Except for HN I suppose ;)

<comment><USER24> Exactly, because there are huge differences between people in HN and other people on the internet. most (not all) stuff in HN is quite good and the links to books/papers are my favorite ones.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Stay at my acquihire? Need advice - <AUTHOR> I am young (early 20s) and my company was just acquired. I got a small amount of cash and I have 150k in options, I get 50k of them in 12 months. The company is valued @ 100m and I think there is no chance they don't have some liquidity event in the next few years for at least 2-5x that.
But I really don't like the work I'm doing and I don't care about their mission. I kind of know what I want to do next but it is going to take a bit of time for me to flush out, but in the mean time I just really don't like being here - but I don't want to walk away from hard earned money, especially if it could be worth < million in the next 12 months. I don't want to make a financially idiotic decision and walk away from a bunch of money.
idk what to do..need some feedback. I'm not passionate so it is really hard for me to get into the work.. <comment><USER2> Mentally commit to staying a year and re-evaluate. That is long enough to see what happens with your (now vested?) options and the companies prospects, and you may feel very different about the work and job in that time.

Life is too short to spend all of it doing something you don't like; but frankly it's also too long to bail immediately every time we don't love the work you are doing or aren't passionate about a companies mission.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's hard to do work you don't feel in anyway connected to. I'd try a technique called negative visualization. Imagine if you don't take the money and leave. What will your life look like in the next year, 5 years.

What is the worst possible scenario? Will you regret it for the rest of your life or will you be happy you made the decision. That money could potentially free you to pursue more meaningful work.

Look, everyone works a job they dislike at some point in their life. You won't always feel passionate about the things you're doing, but you need to weigh how much you may regret it otherwise. This sounds like a sure bet for 2x-5x more in straight cash within your 20's. People don't always get that.

Maybe, try to change something different in your routine of life. Shift the focus from work for 12 months to something else, like dating, a hobby, a sport.

If you seriously hate it, I mean really hate like it boils your blood to get up in the morning and think about going to work then leave. Absolutely, make your peace of mind and health the most important thing. However, this may be an opportunity for you to shift focus and coast for a bit.

</comment><comment> pickle-wizard I am about twice your age so my situation is a little different that yours. I'd be inclined to stick it out, because for $1M, I'd be able to retire. Granted it would be a modest retirement, but I could retire. Then I'd have time to work on what ever I wanted.

Think about what you could do to improve your situation? Can you move to a different project? If it is something else bothering you a frank conversation with your manager may be helpful.

I just did this myself today. I work for an early stage start-up and was ready to say fuck it and quit. I sat down with one of the founders and we discussed my grievances. I feel a lot better now, and I think it will be helpful in the long run.

Also maybe you can do something outside of work to make things more meaningful. Take up a new hobby, or may a new side project.

</comment><comment><USER4> Find a new challenge inside the org. I've found it's easier to stay engaged in a project/company I'm not that passionate about if I can use it as a lab for something I am.

Maybe start with challenges you faced at your startup - what would you like to get more insight into? If you build another startup and plan to scale, what can you learn from studying the success/failures of the managers around you? From how the incentives executives design effect (or fail to effect) them?

Learning adventures are fun, wherever you have them!

</comment><comment><USER5> >> I think there is no chance they don't have some liquidity event in the next few years for at least 2-5x that

Something to consider, aside from the boredom/motivation is that imho the future of this new company is less certain than you're thinking. Companies are regularly disrupted, even if they seem strong now.

Could you start whatever is next now, and push the decision down the road until it's clearer? Meaning, you are excited about what you're moving _towards_?

Tactical question: Do you need to buy your options if/when you leave?

</comment><comment><USER6> > kind of know what I want to do next but it is going to take a bit of time > for me to flush out...

Once you know where you want to end-up; it's easy to deconstruct backwards.

Articulate that journey; the milestones, check-points, experiences, people, moments to keep moving forward.

Good take on Purpose & Momentum by Bosco Anthony > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV5AUAle2Zs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV5AUAle2Zs)

</comment><comment><USER7> Your mental and physical health is more important than the money you would leave on the table imo.

With that being said, like many comments here, I'd use cost-benefit analysis to reevaluate if you should stay or not.

Sometimes progress isn't a straight line pointing up north, so there are more factors where joining a new and different team gives you much more energy and boost to be at a better spot in your career than you would otherwise for staying with your current team.

</comment><comment><USER8> Outside of the tech bubble, most people on this planet would be lucky to make even $100K / yr. You'd make what they'd make in 10 years, in one year. Look at you now. Look at you now - oh - you're getting paper.

You would be able to not work for 10 years _and_ live fairly decently for those 10 years, if you wanted to.

I'd easily trade 1 year for 10.

</comment><comment><USER9> "but in the mean time I just really don't like being here"

That's the key takeaway here, IMHO. If you aren't in a situation where you absolutely need the money, there's nothing wrong with prioritizing your own happiness and wellbeing. People regularly take pay cuts and give up options for a better quality of life.

</comment><comment><USER10> Note that if you've got options, in 12 months you'll have to pay money to get your stocks. When considering to stay, think also if you'll be willing to invest your money to purchase the stocks in the next 12 months (it might be the case you won't or couldn't buy.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Do you want to sell the next 12 months of your life for 1Mil? If yes stay, if not, just go...

</comment><comment><USER12> I guess it just comes down to: do you care about the world or not?

The world is pretty fucked up and needs smart people like yourself fixing it.

If ~250K is more important to you than humanity, stay.</comment>


As the tests get more specific, the code gets more generic - <AUTHOR> http://cleancoder.posterous.com/the-transformation-priority-premise

<comment><USER3> Those kata examples (and the transformation rules expressed therein), like most of the kata I've seen, always feel limited. Take the prime number kata as an example. The implementation is only usable for small input values. Suppose one of the questions is the prime factors of 2 __31-1. This is something which could be done by hand - in the 1770s, Euler worked out that it was prime - <USER2> it's not going to be something which the author's son would likely be assigned.

The author writes: "My premise is that if you choose the tests and implementations that employ transformations that are higher on the list, you will avoid the impasse."

What is the transformation technique which would take the existing prime solution and make it something which handles all integers in the range 1 to 2 __31-1 in "reasonable" time?

Similarly, what is the set of transformations which converts the naive string searching algorithm - that being the one which most easily passes the simple unit tests at the start of a TDD project - and ends up with Boyer–Moore or Knuth–Morris–Pratt?

Or from the quadratic "grade school" algorithm for multiplying two large numbers to the Karatsuba algorithm?

I have a hard time believing that a simple set of transformations apply for all of those cases. I'm easily convinced; just show me the steps.

I do realize that most problems don't require anything more than non-trivial algorithm development. But it feels like TDD is at best a support method for testing complex algorithm development. If it cannot be used to design new algorithms, then what design techniques should people use instead?</comment>


Do low frequency sounds really carry longer distances? - <AUTHOR> http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87751/do-low-frequency-sounds-really-carry-longer-distances

<comment><USER2> That is a well written answer. I knew the material presented but I still found it a fun read. With all the crap that goes around, sometimes it's just nice to see the internet living up to its potential.</comment>


Fourier Transform, Fourier Series, and Frequency Spectrum - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r18Gi8lSkfM <comment><USER2> I like this video, it helped me visualize the Fourier transform when I first started getting into this stuff. Still only in calculus 1 though so definitely want to come back to it down the road.</comment>


How the design of a BMW Motorcycle affects your App - <AUTHOR> http://www.rypple.com/blog/2009/08/14/turn-signals/

<comment><USER3> I wrote this comment for the blog but I am unsure that it posted correctly there:

BMW Motorrad is similar to Apple in many ways:

* Both were early players in their respective markets. Moreso than many other manufacturers, they have a lot of history to draw from.

* Both are known for their design and sense of style. A BMW motorcycle, like an Apple device, is almost instantly recognizable once you know the visual cues of each.

* Both are premium products at premium prices, designed against disposability. A BMW motorcycle and an Apple computer will typically outlast 2-3 of the average competitor's products, while costing about 1.5x as much.

* Both have absolutely rabid followings, winning the kind of fanaticism you can only produce by decades of selling beautiful products that perform beautifully.

The BMW turn signals map closely to the Apple 1-button mouse. Is it the most functional design? Nah. But the customers barely care. The design is functional enough, and it conjures the brand very effectively.

Here, both BMW and Apple "missed" the waves of standardization to user controls; their controls were always good enough from the start, however, and since the users didn't make a stink about it, both highly successful manufacturers left well enough alone.

Looking from our vantage point in the present, sure, someone moving to a BMW or Apple interface will notice a few differences (or, in your words, it will be "inconsistent with virtually every other"). But when you look at it from the point in time at which these interfaces were designed, both were groundbreaking and best-of-breed. Macs had a mouse when their closest competitors would draw some text like "C:>" and drool at you. BMW had foot- shift and hand-clutch when their closest competitors had suicide-shift and clutch pedals. It took another 40 or 50 years for motorcycles to agree upon right-hand throttle, even.

Personally, I don't buy the left-brain/right-brain argument you put forth, and I consider the danger pretty low because turn signals get the absolutely lowest priority when I am riding and need to react to emerging situations (that's pretty-talk for "when the dude in the F-150 aims at me suddenly"). I ride a Honda and I am pleased with the left-thumb directional controls, but I bet I could get used to a BMW pretty quickly.... and any donations to test this theory are gratefully accepted. But in any case, I think you need to see some more of the history behind the controls before you can use them as a UI teaching tool.

<comment><USER4> "* Both are premium products at premium prices, designed against disposability. A BMW motorcycle and an Apple computer will typically outlast 2-3 of the average competitor's products, while costing about 1.5x as much."

I disagree with this. While the design of the a macbook is nicer than any other laptop I can think of, I had to replace the motherboard, optical drive, wrist rest, LCD panel, trackpad, and webcam before it was three years old. Granted I did use it extensively, but I don't think that my usage would have destroyed a Dell latitude or Lenovo Thinkpad any quicker. In fact, I am expecting my current Dell E6500 to last longer than may macbook did.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure you realize that whatever happened to your particular machine is not necessarily indicative of all machines from the same manufacturer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a load of bull. Pardon my French.

That's just a contrived hook, and it's wrong on top of that.

If you're driving a bike you'll know this: 2/3rds of your brake power comes from the front wheel, if you're in a turn _and_ you need your front wheel brake that badly you are in big trouble. Most likely you'll end up on the pavement.

Turning and braking are done separately, and during emergency evasive maneuvers (the lorry pulling out) signaling is the least of your worries.

The sequence normally is:

\- check your lanes

\- indicate your turn

\- wait for a bit to get the rest of the traffic to notice your turn signal

\- meanwhile, reduce speed and shift down if appropriate

\- make your move

So what if one bike brand does it different than others ? Bike users - <USER2> web visitors - are adaptable creatures, they know their bikes inside out.

<comment><USER7> I think you may have missed the point.

Under normal circumstances, one should not brake and turn. But neither should cage drivers turn left in front of you. Or merge into your lane. Or run yellow lights. This stuff happens on the road, and this why so many riders get hurt.

To think that the normal sequence of events is the only one worth designing for is naive.

The post was about how to consider the human context when designing, and used the bike as an example. Any design decision that could delay a rider's reaction time to the primary brake is a bad idea, regardless of how familiar you are with your bike or how adaptable you may be.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but there is no proof that the design of the bike really is worse, just his personal preference.

When designing websites there is a good case to be made for sticking to the familiar (unless you want to make a point) but to use motor cycle design (especially BMW, one of the most renowned bike brands on the planet with a lot more design credit than the author) as an example is poorly chosen.

The whole idea is that you have the thumb of your right hand pretty much in that spot _anyway_ , so no reaction time is lost, rather the opposite, you don't have to make that awkward reset motion with your left hand in order to switch off the blinkers after having made a right hand turn.

This is _more_ convenient, not less convenient.

<comment><USER8> Do you really have to reset the blinkers after turning? (I've never driven a motor cycle, but cars reset automatically just fine.)

<comment><USER9> Yes.

BTW: Cars blinkers don't reset when changing lanes. There's also that joke about solving the problem of indicating left and forgetting about it. The solution is that if you haven't turned left after 15 seconds, the car _automatically_ turns left.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for enlightening me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Maybe this is an oversimplification, but I think the point of the article is "if you're going to do something in a non-standard way, there should be a reason", and the author didn't see an obvious reason for BMW's deviation.

As a motorcyclist I don't see an immediate, obvious advantage to the BMW approach vs. the standard approach but like most things on motorcycles, you may need to actually _use_ it before it makes sense to you.

So it looks like I now have an excuse to spend some time riding Beemers...

</comment><comment><USER11> BEEP! Oh, sorry, just trying to readjust to Honda controls ...

Anyway, I never found 3. to be a problem on my R100GS (w/ early K-style controls) but I think there's another really important point here: supporting those three buttons requires a whole mess of relays, latches and so on, in a black box the size of a couple of packs of cigs, hidden away under the tank. If it fails, like mine did, there's no way to do a roadside repair. It's a black box, literally.

Whereas the standard setup has one simple mechanical switch and one flasher can and not many wires. Its very simple to diagnose and you can get a new flasher can anywhere for $5.

The appropriate BMW slogan: "Why simple, when complicated works?"

</comment><comment><USER12> One of my favorite design-of-everyday-things examples is tiller-controlled outboard motors, like the one seen at <http://bit.ly/3Aftns>, and in particular, the ones where the forward/reverse control is integrated into the tiller (as opposed to a separate shifting lever).

With those engines, there's a very direct connection between the user's movements (moving the tiller) and the way the boat moves in response. It's not immediately obvious, but it becomes natural once you create a mental model around it - in the same way that using a turn signal on a car isn't immediately obvious (why does moving a swingarm down equate with going left?).

The real part I like, however, comes with reversing. As opposed to having to explicitly shift gears, simply turn the throttle in the opposite direction as you do to accelerate. Counter-clockwise to accelerate, clockwise to slow down, and keep turning it clockwise (through a safety stop) and you'll end up going backwards, which you can consider the extreme manifestation of slowing down (you have slowed so much you have negative forward velocity).

<comment><USER7> Interesting example! Especially because the steering element of these motors is so counter intuitive - you push left to go right and vice versa :-)

I agree with you about the direct connection between the user's movements and the speed, but the direction of the twist required to go forward/backward is fairly arbitrary (it seems), so it must be learned rather than 'intuited'.

<comment><USER12> The steering element is, I find, initially counter-intuitive. But my first time driving one of these boats I looked at the engine, saw how it moved where the thrust "pointed", and then it became entirely intuitive - I just needed to build the right model for how the high-level system worked, in order to get an intuitive feeling for the lower-level details.

As for the throttle, you're quite right - the twist direction to go forwards is arbitrary, but the rotating all the way in the opposite direction to reverse (which is what I wanted to highlight) makes much more intuitive sense to me than throttling down to zero, moving a lever, and then throttling back up again.

<comment><USER13> I have driven a piece of farm equipment (bin carrier) which has a pedal that works this way. The pedal is on a pivot and instead of depressing the whole pedal you press on the top to go forward and the bottom to go back. Braking is a simple matter of pressing the pedal in the opposite direction you are going (though normal mechanical brakes are also present as backup).

I found the system to be rather touchy. When coming to a stop it was quite easy to overcompensate and start oscillating back and forth. It was quite fun to drive though, and for the kind of work a bin carrier does the ability to reverse without changing gears is very useful.

Incidentally, in order to achieve this continuously adjustable drive a diesel engine runs at a constant RPM turning a hydraulic pump which in turn drives hub motors in each wheel. The whole thing makes a very distinctive sound as it drives around.

<http://www.shakermaker.com/bin-carrier-images.php>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've never understood why there's no standard position for the indicator stalk on cars - some are on the left of the steering wheel, some on the right...

<comment><USER6> Funny, I have driven quite a few cars, even right hand drive ones and they _all_ had the indicator stalk on the left hand side.

What brands have the indicator stalk on the right ?

I've seen different arrangements for the wipers and the headlight switches though (sometimes on the stalk, sometimes on the dash, left & right).

<comment><USER15> Almost every single car in Australia (besides exotic/rarer european imports) has it on the right. From personal experience, my father had a ferrari which had it on the left, my brother had a Smart car which had it on the left, but everything else I've driven (20+ cars) had it on the right (all right hand drive cars).

<comment><USER6> Neat! Do they switch the place of the pedals as well ?

'Normally' (depending on your definition of 'normal') it is clutch on the left, brakes in the middle and accelerator on the right foot.

Funny how they would do that different than even in the UK, where all cars I've seen had their indicator stalks on the left.

It seems to be more of a regional thing than anything else.

Makes me wonder what Japan is like... (they also drive on the left).

<comment><USER16> Hello from Tokyo Japan.

On Japanese cars ( right hand drive ), all the stalks are reversed from the exported left hand drive model. This means that Japan cars have the turn signal on the right, upward motion signaling a left turn and downward a right turn. The shifter is of course in the middle console, so is on the drivers left. The wiper control stalk is on the left. The ignition control is on the right.

I am curious if the motorcycle controls are reversed though. I guess I'll find that out in a few months.

<comment><USER17> Remembering "upward - left, downward - right" is a pain, imho, the WRONG way to do it.

Much easier to remember any turn indicator for cars is always _in the direction of the turn of the steering wheel_. This helped me immensely when I moved back from Oman (cars and roads the American way) to India (everything the UK way). And also, this way I only had to re-learn the location of the indicator stalk, so that I could avoid flipping on the windshield wipers :-)

p.s: Are there ANY cars that do not follow the "direction of steering wheel" rule for their indicator stalks? Would be interesting to know this..

<comment><USER18> Direction of the TOP of the steering wheel. Doesn't work if you look at the bottom.

<comment><USER19> Eh? If the stalk is mounted radially from the centerline of the steering wheel, you move the it in the same direction (clockwise or counter-) as the steering wheel.

e.g. To turn left, you turn the steering wheel counter-clockwise and likewise with the turn indicator. The 'top' or 'bottom' of the wheel is irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There's a significant problem with the theories behind this post. You have to engage the clutch to break hard or you're going to stall the bike. In fact, many times, acceleration will get you out of as many problems as breaking. Horn is more important to me anyways - they should all be WAY louder.

A better option is an auto-canceling turn signal which I'm sure too expensive, for now. Until then, for either design, the suck is going to depend on finger/thumb size.

</comment><comment><USER21> Very amusing discussion. In particular regarding front wheel braking. You guys really have a sense of humor.

</comment><comment><USER22> when i ride a motorcycle, i rarely use turn sign ... i literally use my head to turn

i don't even use the mirrors because turning my head eliminates blind spots

car and bike riders here understand (and accustomed to) what it means when an object in front of them slows down while its rider's helmet turn to left/right

but of course it's not safe :( so maybe a better solution is a bike with accelerometer built in (like in iPhone) so the sign flashes whenever i tilt my bike accordingly

<comment><USER23> If the sign flashes when you're already turning, it's pretty much too late, don'tyathink? At that point an observer may think that you're signalling a _second_ turn.

<comment><USER17> Amen, dude. [http://shr1k.blogspot.com/2009/07/open-letter-to- motorists.h...](http://shr1k.blogspot.com/2009/07/open-letter-to- motorists.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Haskell Is the Dark Souls of Programming - <AUTHOR> http://deliberate-software.com/haskell-is-the-dark-souls-of-programming/ <comment><USER2> >Please don't hit me, Haskell does a great job of that already.

Good starting, indeed.</comment>


A Slashdot comment on Google Fiber "no servers" clause (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357 <comment><USER2> Google Fiber changed its terms of service in October. The terms now only forbid running a server "for commercial purposes". [0]

I have Google Fiber, and I'm fine with the new terms. I do wonder, though, what would happen if I set up a Tor exit node or something. ...

0\. [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/10/google...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/)

<comment><USER3> It makes their monopoly only stronger. So to say, for any innovator who wants to use his OWN Internet connection to host whatever s/he deems good, it is prohibited by Google. Ok, that's unfair!

<comment><USER4> You sure don't OWN it. You can lease IP addresses from the registry, but you still don't own them, you can get an Internet connection from a company, but you don't own it, you are leasing the line and bandwidth from the provider.

<comment><USER3> Why is it illegal, that's the question! It does not harm anyone!

Ok, but one doesn't need to fully own the cable, to run a startup's server on it. They can forbid SMTP servers, ok, but HTTP etc. should be allowed.

You mean I need my own hacker satellite to own it? Even then, how would you connect your satellite to the network?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is mostly an issue of the limitations of law, or to put it more precisely, having to deal with the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

If the intention is only to prevent large-scale data center, forbidding all commercial form of servers is clearly overkill by a large margin. However, if they limit the scope, they might miss use cases which are by everyone's definition abusive, but not technically a "large-scale data center".

I find the same problem in license texts. The GPL should really only have to be a single line saying "Do what ever you want with the program, so long you do not restrict anyone else in doing the same". Following the spirit, it would cover any form of restrictions now and in the future, regardless if people tried to use hardware restrictions, legal restriction, or obfuscation (like machine language) to restrict users of the program. Applying a different license with a lower requirement, would simply be a matter of intentionally trying to circumvent the wishes of the author.

Alas, licenses are not written like if they were enforced by the spirit of the text, but rather as if they were enforced by the letter of the text. As such, they try to include all forms of license circumventing into a now rather long license text, and when new license-circumventing techniques gets invented, the license text gets an update.

Wouldn't it be nice if licenses and terms of services would just write down what they want, rather than trying to cover every aspect imaginable just in case?

<comment><USER6> Much like computers, the modern legal system doesn't work particularly well if you expect it to "do what I mean, not what I said".

The difference is that compiler errors on the computer don't usually cost six figures when they happen. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there a context to this being posted? (Honest question.)

<comment><USER8> Being on a website called Hacker News.

Seriously, this surprises you?

<comment><USER9> yes, it is not news if the link is a year old and deals with a topic that is no longer relevant.

This is noise, unless there is some related context.

<comment><USER10> He's got a point though, theres quite a bit of precedence for this. E.g. all the random wiki articles posted that aren't 'news'.

<comment><USER11> To be fair though, most of the random wiki articles aren't about corporate gossip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, and Obama wishes he could close Guantanamo Bay. Oh, wait. He could, if he actually wanted to.

Your move, Larry.

<comment><USER13> For reference, here is Obama's executive order to close Guantanamo (date: the 2 days after inauguration).

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure- guantanam...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/closure-guantanamo- detention-facilities)

Just because he _could_ convince congress to stop blocking him doesn't mean the concessions he would have to make would be reasonable. They probably wouldn't be as bad as Clinton/CHIP (Republican congress holding health care for children hostage to secure a 33% cut in capital gains tax during an economic boom), but if said history is any indication the concessions he would have to make to fulfill his mandate might cost thousands of American lives.

<comment><USER14> All congress could do is hold back funds; several groups have volunteered to cover all costs and been ignored.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> These are the terms from Optimum Online:

        Users may not run any type of server on the system. This
        includes but is not limited to FTP, IRC, SMTP, POP, HTTP,
        SOCKS, SQUID, DNS or any multi-user forums;

        Users may not register or point a domain, sub-domain,
        or hostname to any Optimum Online IP address. Moreover,
        Users may not have traffic redirected to the Optimum
        Online Service;

I can't remember what the terms were last time I was on Comacast, but I believe they explicitly allowed running a server under some conditions (non- commercial perhaps?). There are plenty of ways they could cover their asses while still allowing people to run servers. One of the best things about web services that have been popping up over the last couple years is that they offer so much more in terms of monitoring. If Google just says to keep continuous services within some range, with a distinction between peak and non-peak hours (or even better, close-to-live network stats), what is the problem? Well adjusted bots could swamp the network if every client is using it up I suppose...

Edit: Just saw the ToS update posted below. It's an improvement, but I'm honestly surprised that a company like Google can't just skip the vague give- them-what-they-want-without-screwing-ourselves language and clearly lay down the rules in a way that's irrelevant to the common user but explicit for more aware users.

<comment><USER16> "running servers" reminds me a lot on restrictions on some systems against "running arbitrary code", then letting you browse the web with javascript turned on. These days servers take all kinds of form, from an FTP server to somebody hosting a deathmatch from their xbox. Hell would my browser going to a page that uses web sockets count as a server? Is an X server a server? I'm sure I'm running half a dozen chrome extension that count as servers in some way.

Here's a web server in a browser! [http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/puramu/a-browser-based- webserver...](http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/puramu/a-browser-based- webserver-15604)

It's dumb and pointless, what they should be saying is what they mean, if they're afraid of too much bandwidth utilization then say "users may not saturate their connections above 30% bandwidth utilization for longer than 3 hours" or some such. If it's not wanting people to run commercial services then a couple clauses of either "for noncommercial use only" or "not to be held liable for commercial servers running on residential lines" or whatever is the appropriate legalese.

It's just weird old thinking that has nothing to do with how the technology actually works.

<comment><USER17> > It's just weird old thinking that has nothing to do with how the technology > actually works.

It has nothing to do with the technology at all. A cable modem has perfectly adequate performance for a lot of commercial uses and the telecommunications companies want those customers to have to pay 50X as much for a leased line.

Which is why it doesn't make any sense for Google to be doing it. Their purpose isn't to upsell business customers, it's to demonstrate demand for high bandwidth connections so they can pressure other telecommunications companies to increase capacity.

The whole "heavy users" thing is bunkum. Yes, 20% of the users transfer 80% of the data. That's how pretty much everything works. People are diverse and have non-uniform usage patterns, and if you sort by consumption level then the high end tautologically uses more per capita than the low end. But bandwidth is _by far_ not the predominant cost of providing internet service. The predominant cost is getting the wire to the endpoint whatsoever, once it's there you can send as many bits as you can fit and upgrades are a matter of replacing terminating equipment rather than going back into manholes and bucket trucks. If bandwidth consumption were to quintuple it wouldn't require any significant rate increase -- it has been increasing exponentially for years with no real trouble.

The only reason telcos talk about heavy users is that they want to engage in price discrimination and they know it confuses people who are used to dealing with commodities whose dominant cost is the unit cost rather than ones whose dominant cost is the fixed cost of building a distribution system.

<comment><USER18> > The only reason telcos talk about heavy users is that they want to engage in > price discrimination and they know it confuses people who are used to > dealing with commodities whose dominant cost is the unit cost rather than > ones whose dominant cost is the fixed cost of building a distribution > system.

I'd say it's reasonable to charge heavy users more. Firstly, the cost is not totally fixed for the ISP, higher usage involves investment in their own infrastructure (routers, transit etc.). Secondly, it's arguable that heavy users derive greater utility from the service so won't object to higher prices.

<comment><USER17> > Firstly, the cost is not totally fixed for the ISP, higher usage involves > investment in their own infrastructure (routers, transit etc.).

You want to find out how small a portion of the total cost that actually is? Require the ILECs to lease the physical wire from the customer premises to the central office and space in the central office for the lessee's terminating equipment, prohibit the last mile provider from sharing ownership with a backhaul provider and then have the likes of Level 3 and Verizon compete with each other to sell connectivity from your local central office to the wider internet.

> Secondly, it's arguable that heavy users derive greater utility from the > service so won't object to higher prices.

Also known as price discrimination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The first obvious question is how good is the Fiber pool? Almost any ISP I have encountered in NYC oversold their pools. Time Warner though has improved pretty well for about a year (but still crappy from time to time).

The second question is how does Fiber do in the future when it opens up in other towns and cities? Say it comes to NYC, and Google just not able to handle that crazy botnet running in some residential pool, should they pull the plug and say NO MORE SERVER?

I like running server straight from my connection if it is stable and fast. I am just afraid that they might say no in the future when things get worse.

<comment><AUTHOR> They did not remove the clause completely, they changed the clause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The problem is, even if they only have that in their TOS to cover their asses, there are people that won't run servers because of that clause, regardless of whether or not they would get punished for doing it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It reminds me of the anti reverse engineering clause in MS EULAs.

<comment><USER21> That sort of clause is pretty common in software these days. Even Google has them e.g. the Google Earth EULA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm sorry, hasn't this been the "No Duh that's why the clause is there?" line of thinking for everyone? I'm actually a little surprised by the comment the submission links to because it makes it out that Larry _didn 't get that idea_ from the get go. Of course you need to protect yourself from that one jerk that goes too far and tries to start an ISP out of his personal Google Fiber connection or something like that.

<comment><USER23> I'm sure Larry got that idea. I suspect he refused to accept that _doing what everyone else did_ was the only solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> (2012) The ToS has since been updated slightly, although I don't know if Page is happy with the current version. [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/10/google...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Almost certainly they were violating Stanford's terms of use when they set up Google in their dorm room or whatever. The university where I work has all kinds of prohibitions on what students can do, e.g. no personal routers or wifi, no hosting servers, certainly nothing commercial, etc.

</comment><comment><USER26> Pretty sure if I am hosting a website (even a popular one), Google isn't going to come bringing the law.

If they did get annoyed with the violation of terms, they would probably first send me a warning, at which point I was just transfer the hosting to AWS or something.

</comment><comment><USER27> Google is Evil.</comment>


Show HN: Play Videos in the Chrome Dev Tools Console - <AUTHOR> https://snoogism.com/Play-Videos-in-the-Chrome-Dev-Tools-Console-ef8f124de89b4f25b083cf320f1e8cc0 <comment><USER2> Love what you did and the tone of your article ! One of my first "Show HN" was a chat in the console and you could indeed personalize the look of your text using this "css in console.log" feature.</comment>


How the Internal Combustion Engine Keeps Getting Better - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/internal-combustion-engine-technology-argonne/ <comment><USER2> aren't they still limited by a Carnot engine efficiency limit.</comment>


Show HN: Stockrow.com – US companies financial data - <AUTHOR> https://stockrow.com/ <comment><USER2> Hey, cool site. I work a lot with financial data and decided to poke at this, here are some thoughts / findings:

\- It would be nice to be able to look up companies by CIK instead of just ticker.

\- You should support share class delimiters in nyse tickers like BRK.B instead of BRKB

\- The chart on the first tab is not split adjusted but the chart on the second tab is but it is not called out anywhere. Check CBB to see a recent example.

\- The 'stock price' indicator is not in the list of possible indicators but is in the text box by default.

\- The 'share price' indicator shows 'no data to display'.

\- There is a typo in the terms and conditions for line 7: "netowrking"

Overall this is a nice resource for quickly looking at fundamentals.

edit: formatting

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, we will go through the list and fix all issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice job on this. And as Yahoo fails who knows what will happen to Yahoo Finance, so potentially very good timing too.

One piece of feedback for the charts: being able to see the % up/down (over the dates selected) not just prices would be helpful.

For example: in the case of comparing two stocks (or a stock to an index) performance YTD, seeing just prices doesn't mean much, % change (eg +5% vs +10% YTD) is what is being compared.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, yes we are aware of this and plan to add it in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If charts are what I want, I head over to tradingview. If its company data then that's finance.google. I am very curious to know what's the product roadmap for the future?

<comment><AUTHOR> We currently offer 10-year fundamental data for free, and we plan to expand it to a longer time frame and add more regions like Asia and Europe. We are building a comprehensive stock screener right now with 400 fundamental indicators. Next we plan to add more detailed business descriptions for each company, portfolio tracking, notes, social functions and much more. I would say we are just getting started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there an API? Might be cool to use this to mess around with tensor-flow to predict trading.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet — we do plan to provide one in the feature though

<comment><USER5> This sort of site would be very very valuable.

You've basically done all of the leg work for someone to start experimenting! Amazing work and I hope you can monetize this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot! We already do have plans for monetizing (we will see what reality will look like) and hopefully we will start working on that. Just keep in mind that everything that is accessible now will stay free forever; at least thats the plan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like it. Why and how did you build it?

<comment><AUTHOR> We built it because there are not many websites which offer long-term fundamental data for free. Most are only focused on day traders or short-term traders and we felt a site with a long-term approach to investing is missing. It took us a year to get here, because there are only two of us and we do this mostly on weekends. But we have the determination to continue and keep gathering feedback to build something that delivers value to investors.</comment></comment>


Strategic Scala Style: Practical Type Safety - <AUTHOR> http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/StrategicScalaStylePracticalTypeSafety.html <comment><USER2> A great post!

A suggestion for change: Try[V] is, for most purposes, a more intuitive alternative to Either[V, T] for exception handling. It can be passed a block that may throw a Throwable and Do the Right Thing, it has functions named in ways that make it more clear which alternative they operate on (recover, isFailure, isSuccess), and works nicely in for comprehensions:

      val tryManyThingsSequentially = for {
        result <- someDangerousComputation
        other <- otherDangerousComputation(result)
      } yield other

(As far as I understand, it's implemented more or less as an Either[V, Throwable] under the hood.)

<comment><USER3> I don't agree with that advice.

By using Either you're forced to enumerate all errors that can happen and those errors are no longer exceptional. This means that the ErrorType can be an ADT or even if you're using things inheriting from Throwable, you can have a base type that's more specific than Throwable. More than that, you're free to generate your own errors. Because you see, whenever you do "throw new SomeException", or in other words whenever you're using exceptions for validations of user input or flow control, God kills a kitten.

The problem with exceptions is that they signal a very strong-side effect, as throwing an exception obliterates your call-stack. Forget about functional programming, because this violates the laws of structured programming, functions and modules ending up with multiple exit points, blowing up in your face when you least expect them. There's also a big difference between NumberFormatException and OutOfMemoryError. One is truly exceptional, whereas the other could be prevented, guess which is which.

Btw, when using Either, as a matter of convention, the errors are at the Left, whereas the normal result is at the right. So that would be Either[Error, A]. And nothing stops you from using for comprehensions with Either ...

        val tryManyThingsSequentially = for {
          result <- someDangerousComputation.right
          other <- otherDangerousComputation(result).right
        } yield other

Some people don't like Either because it is unbiased. In the Cats library you've got Xor, which is like a right-biased Either (so you don't have to use right projections explicitly, like in the above sample). There's also a similar type in Scalaz.

<comment><USER2> Without algebraic types in Scala, it is unfortunately very difficult to have an Either that enumerates all the expected types of exceptions from a block of code (especially one that you did not write).

My general idiom for restricting the return types of Try is to recover or recoverWith only the types I consider "normal" and expected. e.g.

      finalTryValue.recoverWith {
        case FileNotFoundException => Success(HttpResponse(InternalServerError))
        case JsonParseError =>  Success(HttpResponse(BadRequest))
        case e: ComplicatedException where e.meetsSomePredicate => Failure(new MoreInformativeException(cause=e))
      }
      // at this point, if the Try is still a failure, something's wonky and we *should* crash, or do whatever our generic error-handling code specifies
      // and the failure will still contain the original stack at the time of failure

With regard to for comprehensions, I just find the Either left/right convention hard to read and remember; I'd even like Try if it was just a thin wrapper that added handy names to Either, like "type Try[E, V] = Either[E <: Throwable, V]" with handy aliases for left and right.

<comment><USER3> Don't get me wrong, I do find Try useful. We are talking about public APIs, as in APIs meant to be consumed by people other than the author of that function.

The problem with a Try[T] is that if somebody else reads the signature of `def somethingDangerous()`, he won't be able to see that the code can throw a FileNotFoundException or a JsonParseError. Scala does have algebraic types and you can even handle the unexpected with a type like this:

        sealed trait Error
        case class FileNotFoundError(f: File) extends Error
        case class JsonParseError(path: JsPath) extends Error
        // ... we can even handle the unexpected
        case class UnknownError(ex: Throwable) extends Error

Surely that's extra boilerplate, but if the function is public (meant to be used by other people), then it's worth it. Because now when you say that your function returns an `Either[Error, A]`, this type explicitly documents the important error types that can happen (and are hence not exceptional).

I know what you mean by Either. What you want is a right biased Either. Many people feel that way. You've got it implemented in libraries such as Cats or Scalaz. The left/right convention isn't hard to remember, because it's consistent. In general you'll see that types are biased to the right, which really means that the useful happy path result is usually at the right.

<comment><USER2> Sure, if you're willing to create a sealed trait, and separate exception classes, for every function that wants to do this.

What this really needs to be usable is union (sum) types

So in this case:

      def dangerousFunction(): Either[FileNotFoundError | JsonParseError, Int] = {
        ???
      }

...and looking for this online, it turns out this is a feature in the experimental Dotty compiler. Yay.

And yeah, right-biased either would get halfway there. But it's really the terminology and naming that I have an issue. If I could get an Either knockoff that just called its left and right "error" and "success", that would go a long way to readability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My team recently started boxing both integer and string IDs in a service of ours and, though the transition was a little painful, it has paid off immensely in both readability and safety. These kinds of tips aren't just pedantic programming language theory, they're improvements that will actually make your code nicer!

<comment><USER5> If you have your class extend AnyVal, you even get the wrapping for free.

<comment><USER3> You should never extend AnyVal, unless you're using that for defining extension methods. The feature is a hack, because it has to workaround the JVM's lack of value classes, hence it has non-intuitive behavior and it probably doesn't work as you think it does.

In particular if you ever have to declare the type anywhere (or in other words, whenever you treat it as a type), like in:

         case class Person(id: PersonId)

That's going to be an allocated PersonId instance. And the limitations don't stop there. You'll also get instances allocated when doing pattern matching, or when working with generic functions. Heck, if you'll actually measure the performance, you'll soon discover that the JVM _will allocate more_ on the heap and not less. And there goes the primary use-cases out the window. So you might as well have it as a normal class and avoid the gotchas and your colleagues cursing ;-)

<comment><USER5> I admit that I am not an expert on Scala, but I am confused about your "Person" example. I thought that this was exactly the common use case that _wouldn 't_ cost you an allocation. According to [http://docs.scala- lang.org/overviews/core/value-classes.html](http://docs.scala- lang.org/overviews/core/value-classes.html):

        A value class is actually instantiated when:

            a value class is treated as another type.
            a value class is assigned to an array.
            doing runtime type tests, such as pattern matching.

none of which is the case in the example.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bill Gates: Life After Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=be9075bb-df0a-41c9-8d86-7ded46627e26

<comment> daniel-cussen It's interesting from a nerd-pride point of view. He's good at laughing at himself. I can't believe he did the scene in the gym and then one in the rap studio. You kind of forget he's the richest guy on earth.

Nerd Pride!

</comment><comment><USER2> > Life After Microsoft

For him or for us? Why is he so egocentric?!</comment>


Ask HN: How do I (a bad developer) turn my career around? - <AUTHOR> I've been skating by for about 5 years now, basically just by the skin of my teeth avoiding termination at every job I've ever had.  I'm never able to keep up with the information that's constantly being thrown at me, never sure what questions to ask to get where I need to be, and I never know how to approach a problem because every domain just feels so complex and overwhelming.  I've tried taking notes, implementing my own features, and learning outside of work.  Every time I start a project I have to go back to the Hello World doc for whatever framework/language I'm implementing it in.  It's hard to recall even the simplest things sometimes.  I write JS every day and a week ago I forgot how to use the .map function that I've used a thousand times.  I've accepted the fact that my brain is just not wired for software development.  I've been told for years that it's just imposter syndrome but now that I'm up against the wall at work, I know it's not true.  I am about 80% certain I'm not going to make it through my current job.  I have a feeling I will likely not last another month.  Where do I go from here? <comment><USER2> > I've accepted the fact that my brain is just not wired for software > development.

Whether your brain is wired for it or not (and I do believe that it takes a certain type of person to be good at it), that you've actually accepted this as truth speaks volumes.

Perhaps the thing to do is find another specialty? The software development field is vast, with many specialties inside of it. Web development, embedded systems, business software, etc. It could be that you'd thrive in one of those specialties. Or it could be that you're in the wrong profession altogether.

My advice (which isn't worth much) is to take stock of yourself. Being painfully honest, list out what your skills are, what your interests are, and what things and environments you can't stand. Then start looking for either a software specialty that corresponds well with your list, or an entirely different field that does.

I'd also recommend visiting with a career counselor for help with this process. Your community college very likely has some available.

</comment><comment><USER3> There could easily be much more going on here than you acquiescing to your "brain is just not wired for software development" or "you don't know the basics about the stack you're working with." Frankly, we would need more information to know.

But in the absence of such, let me read between the lines and infer that you've been in a continual state of stress for the past five years you mention. Stress will kill you. Elevated cortisol and adrenaline levels, over a prolonged period, will seriously mess you up. It will lead to adrenal fatigue, which affects memory and cognition, etc.

There's not a dev alive who can perform well like that, because you're not physically digging ditches or laying pipe, you're performing mental work; the hardest type of work there is.

Now, if you doubt yourself, stop. You know what you can do. And if you don't know, make the time time now to persuade yourself. This is something you can control. Same for the stress. It's an internal reaction to external events or internal thoughts, for the most part. You don't have to react. The pressure you're feeling is imagined, because it's in your head.

It's the result of limitations you put on yourself to produce outcomes you don't control. When you focus on the outcome, you begin to expect things out of your control and that sets you up for failure. But the truth is, you can't control the outcome. You can only control your attitude, your mindset and your actions. And once you're content with that, you'll feel much better not trying to manage things external to you. Those things include what others think about you personally, how they may assess your skills or job performance, and what they expect you to produce. All of that is out of. Your. Control.

Software engineering has little to do with memory (how to call that JS map function) and much more to do with thinking logically (applying the appropriate function, framework, library or language, in a methodical series of steps, to the solve the problem at hand). As I've mentioned, nobody is expected to think logically under continual duress.

If you're truly not adept at software engineering, that's perfectly okay to admit to yourself and others. But none of that means you cannot begin to be a proficient software dev, given the opportunity and desire. You'll have to tackle the stress first. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't want you to give up. You sound a lot like me, except you were actually able to prove yourself and get employed doing what you do. If you succeed, you would be living proof that even living garbage like myself could be successful somewhere. If you like what you do, despite not being a 1x, 10x, or whatever programmer, I think you should keep doing your best.

But definitely consider whatever other more qualified people here have to say.

</comment><comment><USER5> The fact that you go back to a "hello world" tutorial every time suggests me you don't know the basics about the stack you're working with.

I suggest you go back to a junior job to learn more and if they ask about your story just tell the truth.

Feel feee to get in touch using the email in my profile and we can have a call to discuss further. Best of luck!</comment>


Code Optimizations for the Brave - <AUTHOR> https://oded.ninja/2017/05/20/optimizations-for-the-brave/ <comment><USER2> A wilder example of loop unrolling in C is Duff's Device, which exploits an unusual aspect of fallthrough behavior within switch statements.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device)

[http://www.drdobbs.com/a-reusable-duff- device/184406208](http://www.drdobbs.com/a-reusable-duff-device/184406208)

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/514118/how-does-duffs- de...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/514118/how-does-duffs-device-work)</comment>


The Nine Lives of Cat Videos - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/08/documents-immigration-secret-asylum-seeker-boats-accidentally-released-guardian-australia <comment> david-given Link points to the wrong place.</comment>


Germany Fights Population Drop - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/europe/germany-fights-population-drop.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> This is a dumb article, constantly repeated. Germany, like many countries (though less so), is currently suffering from a demand crisis where there are not enough well paying jobs for the current population.

The most important thing to consider is productivity growth, though, which according to some random blog I just googled[1] was 2.5% from 1985-1990, 2.9% from 1990-1995, 1.9% from 1995-2000, and 1.4% from 2001-2006. Assuming an average of 2% productivity growth for the next 47 years, each the 2 2060 workers will be 1.02^47 (2.5) times as productive as today's employees, allowing the three individuals (2 workers and a supported retiree) to live a lifestyle twice as nice as the current population.

That calculation doesn't include the added benefits of a lower population, such as more space and crime reduction.

(for completeness' sake, assuming a 1% productivity gain a year means that these 3 individuals from 2060 would be living a lifestyle only 5% [edit: my math was bad here, it's actually 33%] nicer than the current standard. Also, both examples assume a reasonable distribution of wealth.)

[1] [http://www.ulrich-fritsche.net/blog/labour-productivity- grow...](http://www.ulrich-fritsche.net/blog/labour-productivity-growth-in- good-old-germany-is-germany-falling-further-behind)

<comment><USER3> Assuming, of course, that productivity gains are shared equally across the population. The problem: that's not what has been happening. Instead, median wages have not quite kept up with inflation while the super rich and parasitic industries like investment banks reap the gains.

<comment><USER4> Exactly - so instead of giving people more money so that they can slack of and have kids, make them work even more and take away their kids.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "what you see is the higher the gender equality, the higher the birthrate"

Yeah, I am sure in Bangladesh and Nigeria they have great gender equality.

Have more children, we have the childcare also seems like a stupid proposition. So you have the kids but no time to see them? 24h child care - great signal. So I can work round the clock for nothing?

I have a different proposal: pay employers for every child that a women employed with them has. So instead of being a liability, employers could earn money by encouraging their employees to have kids.

<comment><USER3> > Have more children, we have the childcare also seems like a stupid > proposition. So you have the kids but no time to see them? 24h child care - > great signal. So I can work round the clock for nothing?

Bullshit. "24h" child care simply means that you don't have to choose your job to fit the opening hours of your child care provider.

> I have a different proposal: pay employers for every child that a women > employed with them has. So instead of being a liability, employers could > earn money by encouraging their employees to have kids.

And of course there's not chance that will be abused...

<comment><USER4> How - faking child births? If society wants more kids, it should pay up.

The point about the childcare thing is: the solution is not providing parents to get rid of their kids so that they can work. The proper solution would be to enable parents to work less and still have time for their kids.

You think catering to parents with flexible work schedules will have a significant impact on birth rates? How many people does that concern anyway?

<comment><USER5> The problem is, there are no good incentives to pay for you to have an 18+ year responsibility.

Pay to give birth? Wow, what a couple hundred bucks? Maybe a $1000? Pay directly for services that children would use?

The problem is, there is no good way to subsidize being a good, responsible parent. You have to want to be. And more people are simply opting not to have children.

[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148636,00....](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148636,00.html)

<comment><USER4> "The problem is, there are no good incentives to pay for you to have an 18+ year responsibility."

If you think like that, don't have kids. I think people should have kids because they like having them around.

If we go extinct because people don't like kids anymore, so be it. It would just be a shame if we went extinct because people can't afford children anymore.

But I didn't mean pay parents, I meant pay employers.

Also Germany already pays up to 20000€ for kids, if I remember correctly (they pay a percentage of the mothers salary in her last job for 12 months).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's surprising how immigration is almost never mentioned as an alternative to these "population-drop-fighting" measures. You'd think one of the things they'd do was make it easier for immigrants with some level of skill to get permanent residency.

<comment><USER7> Immigration isn't a panacea. You have to be able to absorb and acculturate those immigrants, and you have a finite capacity to do that.

This will yield down votes, but I'm an immigrant from the subcontinent and I understand what I'm talking about when I say this: it is vital to preserve western culture. Immigration done right can strengthen it and keep it vital, but done wrong it can dilute and corrupt the culture.

Germany is better than India or China or the Middle East or the other countries immigrants would come from. Full stop. Westerners don't appreciate the extent to which a lot of the bad things we perceive to characterize those countries is baked into their culture. Sexism, racism, corruption at the basest level. That will follow immigrants into Germany and take root there unless immigration is slow enough to acculturate the immigrants.

<comment><USER8> That has to be the most ridiculous statement - especially since you claim to come from the subcontinent yourself. Every country has its share of problems and cultural differences - but you're looking at it from a very pessimistic and negative perspective. Germany and any other country can put in measures to ensure the kind of people do immigrate are also ones that would fit into their societies. They don't need to haul them over in boatfulls.

<comment><USER7> For immigration to serve as a counterweight to declining birth rates, you do need to haul people over in boatfulls. And its a modern classist conceit that the virtues of western culture come from education and wealth rather than socialization and upbringing. There are plenty of educated wealthy middle easterners who cover their daughters faces in public and believe its morally acceptable.

<comment><USER8> Actually - in a number of those countries its legally required for them to be covered. The point is different - you can't use an extreme example of a hijab to claim that western values are uniquely good - and those coming from eastern countries only create a negative cultural impact. If you understood the point of the article - the goal isn't to increase the birth rate. The goal is to make sure the population doesn't fall to a level where it will not be able to sustain the social structures that exist. This can be countered by controlled highly skilled immigration and is working perfectly fine in Canada and New Zealand among other places. For what its worth though - of all people you should probably be glad not everyone thought that people from the east should stay where they are - otherwise you with all your extreme views on this would've still been stuck in your walled garden in India. Driving around in your foreign car. What an unfortunate existence!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Whenever I see these concerns about population decline (occurring in many parts of the world now), I can't help but think: why fight population decline? Embrace it, focus on improving the quality of life per citizen. Leverage robotics to bring drastically higher productivity to a smaller base of workers. Massive populations will be a liability in the not-so-distant future, as nearly all forms of repetitive manufacturing is performed by robotic platforms. For most countries, the larger the population, the more social upheaval there will be in the transition.

Within 20 years there will be wide-spread protests against robots in the US, with calls to outlaw robotic manufacturing, union calls to limit robot use and artificially increase robot cost to make it "fair" for human labor, and lobbying efforts to restrict which tasks robots are allowed to take over.

<comment><USER10> The problem is still there with any social support system for retirement: to work effectively, you need enough people paying now to cover the people on the rolls. If the population drops too much, the social safety net for retirees becomes insolvent. You can, of course, do the opposite of adding new workers: simply cause every new worker to pay more than the previous worker - but at what point do workers decide it's simply not worth it to work, when so much of their income is being spent paying for earlier retirees?

It's a balancing act for sure. Previously, most western countries enjoyed a population growth, which meant more workers paying in than taking out, as this trend is reversing in nearly all western countries, it will be interesting to see how each country deals with it. In the U.S. the focus is on immigration and putting additional limits on what one can take out of the system - I'm not entirely sure that this is the right response, but I don't think simply ratcheting costs up on tomorrow's workers is the right answer either.

As to robotics, well, that's a whole 'nother basket to deal with. I don't think that expanding robotics automatically creates worker revolts - if done well, it can create opportunities where they didn't exist before. Where once the only low-skilled jobs available were heavy labor and highly fungible services, we could create whole new classes of jobs relating to less fungible services (e.g. hyper-localized services), and with the possibilities of expansion off of the planet - there will be many opportunities for new work. I do believe that robotics will reach the tipping point right around the time that space exploration truly opens up. If it doesn't, my prediction that most employment will be in the armies of nations - as we fight over dwindling resources.

<comment><USER11> The US focuses on immigration but also investment schemes like 401Ks, which require a continuously growing economy to work. Thankfully, we have lots of land to grow on.

As for robots, watch Japan: they have an aging population, an aversion to immigration, and a love for robots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What's the deal with working in Germany as a non-German speaker nowadays? Is it possible to get on alright in tech companies or are they still very much German only?

<comment><USER13> In Berlin: no problem. In the rest of Germany: probably problematic.

<comment><USER14> I know several companies in Hamburg where English is the corporate language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Contrast this with the United States, where overpopulation is a growing challenge and some organizations are suggesting policy changes to achieve a smaller, more sustainable fertility rate. This nonprofit, called NPG, is a pretty interesting and reasonable one; it advocates for the majority of American women to have fewer than three children, and it calls for non- coercive tax incentives that encourage Americans to have smaller families: [http://www.npg.org/faq.html](http://www.npg.org/faq.html)

<comment><USER16> There are plenty of examples of over population in the world, but the US is not one of them. Our growth is slowing and there are huge amounts of available land. The country could easily be several times its size in population.

<comment><USER15> Your statement about the United States' available land makes the assumption that the American population is evenly distributed across urban and rural areas. In reality, more than 80 percent of the country's population lives in urban areas. The population in those areas grew by 12.1 percent between 2000 and 2010. Just because spacious rural areas exist doesn't mean that Americans are willing or able to move to them.

[http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census...](http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html)

<comment><USER17> Then which is it? Is the US overpopulated or just the cities you particularly like?

Here are a few places in the US that don't have an overpopulation problem: Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Hartford.

<comment><USER15> Those are interesting examples worth discussing, but, as you know, a handful of anecdotes doesn't invalidate national statistics reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

<comment><USER17> You said the US was getting overcrowded. Overwhelming evidence says this is hardly the case. Statistics cannot tell you a city is overcrowded, that is a judgement call. And as far as density no city in the US rates even in the top 20.

<comment><USER15> Check out some of the sources provided in one of my comments above, including the one that shows growing homeless and food shortages in 21 major American cities, and urban school systems that are 200% over capacity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's the development job market like in Germany? How hard is it to immigrate if you have skills and are willing to try to learn the language?

<comment><USER3> Developers are in high demand in cities like Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt.

Immigration is probably a major feat of beaurocracy but not too hard in principle if you have looked-for skills ( see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Card_%28European_Union%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Card_%28European_Union%29) ).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> And in other news, American women envy the work-life balance of their counterparts in Europe:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/11/going...](http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/11/going_dutch.single.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'd move to German. Where have I to sign?

<comment><USER21> There you go: [http://www.auswaertiges- amt.de/EN/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/Uebe...](http://www.auswaertiges- amt.de/EN/EinreiseUndAufenthalt/Uebersicht_node.html)

<comment><USER20> I was looking for something simpler :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "If Germany is to avoid a major labor shortage, experts say, it will have to find ways to keep older workers in their jobs, after decades of pushing them toward early retirement"

Doesn't it suck when a society is forced into valuing its elderly.

It actually seems responsible of a society to balance itself with its environment. Population overgrowth is a major issue in the world and I applaud the people of Europe who, and possibly unconsciously, are reaching a greater balance with their environment in the hopes of securing an actual future in it.

Can't help to think of...

Humans are a virus: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI)

Humans as Cancer: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0R6EvtGnoE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0R6EvtGnoE)

<comment><USER23> Must be depressing to think of yourself as a cancer cell. Who do you think is the host?

<comment><USER22> The idea is that humans exhibit the characteristics of a cancer within its environment. Its only a metaphor for how humans have treated their environment and is not meant to be taken literally.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Modern Resume Style/Formatting - <AUTHOR>

What do modern resumes look like? Everything I've seen or been shown lately by "regular people" (older people mostly) seems so 90s to me. I've heard of using GitHub, but I'm not really a programmer or looking for a programming job. Any examples of your guy's resume's (that hopefully got you jobs?) would be helpful! Thanks. <comment><USER2> I recently used a new format and form and have had some success: <http://openmymind.net/karlseguin.pdf>

My main goal was: 1 - Make it a single page 2 - Focus more on bio/profile/goal/whatever 3 - Focus on projects and passion more than work experience

I've heard that "bios are the new resume" and I tend to agree. I also think that actual code is more important than experience (hence the focus on projects and github).

<comment><USER3> You are definitely hitting your goals, however it reads too much like a diary and will never make it past anyone who isn't technical. (Which may or may not be a good thing)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I usually try to make mine look a little more "modern." I usually follow a few simple rules:

1.) Two or three colors color scheme 2.) Simple vertical alignment 3.) 2 fonts: 1 for headings and one for body text 4.) One or two simple graphics 5.) Don't let it resemble a MS Office template

Here's a slightly dated resume of mine: <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/58767/zkoch- resume.pdf>

<comment><AUTHOR> What kinda program do you create something like this in, maybe Illustrator?

<comment><USER5> Word is fine. If you want to get fancy, LaTeX. Just don't distribute a .docx file. Save it as .pdf.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Calibri font (or some other simple, standard sans-serif). Black text with a single dark color for headings that will look OK when printed in grey scale.

I opt for a simple outline format. I've seen a lot of fancy designs, but I think if someone is looking for specifics, an outline is easiest. As an engineering student, I have the headings of Education, Employment, Projects, and Skills.

Keep it at one page.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here's mine: <http://eugene.lt/resume.pdf>

The goal was to fit everything onto a single page. Laid out in HTML and simply saved to PDF with Safari.

<comment><USER7> +1 for single HTML file (embedded CSS) and Safari print to PDF.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I actually like Github's markdown style so much that I put my resume on github: <http://bit.ly/mwhiteresume>. And because it's written in markdown, I have a plaintext version I can use if I need to, and a PDF (<http://bit.ly/mwhiteresumepdf>) created with pandoc.

I've taken the approach of doing away with a discrete "Skills" section and just bolding relevant keywords in my work and education entries.

<comment><USER9> If you like markdown check out pandoc. Pandoc can turn your markdown into txt, pdf, html, rtf, s5, etc. You can spice up the pdf version with a little latex magic as well as export.

I always like kjhealy's resume on github.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have tried to keep my resume a simple and plain as possible. I'm still at uni, but will be applying for a job soon so any comments and/or suggestions are much appreciated.

<http://crocodoc.com/N28pQof>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I know this is YC, but anyone have stuff more focused on IT rather than programming? I'm having a hard time with my skills section, seeing as I can't really list programming languages/frameworks/etc and stuff.

<comment><USER11> I'm a recruiter and I'm happy to talk to you if interested. My contact info is in my profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Umm here's mine - <http://www.scribd.com/doc/26089345/Dhaval-Trivedi>

Hope it gives some pointers!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Any more examples/ideas/etc?</comment>


Rent Your Room for Startup School 09 - <AUTHOR> http://airbnb.com/startupschool

<comment><USER2> Did anyone get their invitation yet?

<comment><USER3> Don't worry, invitations have not gone out yet. We posted this early so hackers in the bay area can list their extra rooms ahead of time.

<comment><USER4> Anyway you can make a page for Startup Bootcamp?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thanks to OP for posting this! I was fretting renting a $$ hotel for the 6 days I was going to be there, and was about to either cancel my trip or make it a fly-in/fly-out thing. I've had some random recent unexpected expenses.

Just requested a room right next to Caltrain!</comment>


Microsoft employees pissed over company's connection to ICE - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2018/06/18/microsoft-employees-pissed-ove.html <comment> core-questions > But hey: it isn't January anymore and Microsoft in June, 2018 is looking a > little bit like IBM back in the 1930s.

This is obscenely hyperbolic, cheapens the Holocaust, and is just plain wrong.

ICE has a legal mandate, well-established, to perform enforcement of the normal and just laws of the nation, focused on immigration law. They're not jack-booted thugs rounding citizens up for gas chambers, they're police officers rounding up criminals. Yes, you're a criminal if you're in the country illegally.

> Under the Trump Administration's direction, ICE and other Homeland Security > entities have been busy breaking up families, emotionally scarring thousands > of innocent kids, and driving their anguished caretakers into cages, or > worse, to suicide.

The policies of breaking up families aren't new. We don't put children in jail cells! Using the word "cages" is emotionally manipulative - they're jail cells, which is where we put people that break the law. Entering the country illegally is breaking the law, plain and simple.

> That Microsoft's Azure cloud computing services are helping such villainy > along, in any capacity, might be good in the short-term, for the company's > bottom line, but the optics are shit.

Supplying IT services to the federal government for the enforcement of laws is not villainy. Writing articles that intend to punish a company for taking a totally reasonable business decision is more villainous, especially if you're going to compare it to supporting Nazi Germany. Yikes.

<comment><AUTHOR> > legal mandate, well-established, to perform enforcement of the normal and > just laws of the nation

There is no law on the books justifying separation.[0]

> Using the word "cages" is emotionally manipulative

Border Patrol themselves say it's "not inaccurate" to call them cages. [1]

> they're jail cells

Oh, everything is ok then.

[0] [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justify-separating-kids- pare...](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justify-separating-kids-parents- border-tolerance-bannon/story?id=55946718) [1] [https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/100869550237907763...](https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/1008695502379077637)

<comment> core-questions > There is no law on the books justifying separation.

So are you saying you want children to be places into jail cells?

> Border Patrol themselves say it's "not inaccurate" to call them cages.

There's bars, yep. Did you think it was going to be a Holiday Inn that they put these people up in?

> Oh, everything is ok then.

No, the situation is terrible, and costs taxpayers millions. They should all just be sent back immediately upon capture. The whole thing is a waste of time and money.</comment></comment></comment>


Technology and the death of civilisation - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@josepicardoshs/technology-and-the-death-of-civilisation-5e831b3f8b5#.5gzowbw1k <comment><USER2> There isn't enough discussion of the difference between cause and root cause.

Clearly, technology can't possibly be the cause of old people getting agitated about how young people are destroying the civilization left for them. That complaint has been circulating as far back as we can find records.

I suspect we'd be getting closer to root cause if we examined how people observe other people.

Heinlein has a great idea for a profession in "Stranger in a Strange Land". There are Witnesses who go through painstaking training to ensure that they can actually, truly, literally be impartial observers of events. For example, if asked "what color is that house" they would reply "this side of the house is white." Most people aren't even aware of all the simplifying assumptions they're making when they observe the world, which means they can't account for avoidable mistakes when they think on their observations.

The image of kids looking at their phones instead of the painting is just that. It's a picture of kids looking at their phones while in the vicinity of a painting. A single picture tells you nothing about the context in which that picture was taken, and that's before you start worrying about image manipulation. I suspect the vast majority of the times when old people get annoyed at young people are really just people failing to remember that their observation tells them much less about the situation than they assume.

This framework seems more powerful because it helps explain other things. For example, I think the reason the "social justice movement", such as it is, is struggling to be taken seriously is that it's impossible to photograph. The civil rights movement was easy to explain. All you needed were pictures of burning crosses, or nooses, or whites/coloreds signs, or police dogs, or fire hoses. The message didn't get lost in the aggressive filter everyone applies to their observations. The social justice movement is about much more abstract things like the 2nd and 3rd order effects of obscure laws or accumulated subjective experiences. So the only parts you can photograph are people shouting and/or crying. The message is guaranteed to get lost in the filter, so it's basically impossible for anyone who's merely observing it to get the truth.

In the same way, it's impossible to capture what someone is thinking/feeling when they're using technology. The experience is subjective. You can't tell if they're asleep with their eyes open, or mindlessly poking colored squares, or doing homework, or falling in love, or discovering a new perspective. All you can observe, over and over again, is just a person staring at a screen. The truth of the situation is not observable, yet we continue to base our understanding of the truth on our observations.</comment>


Google Buys Russian Contextual Ads Service for $140m - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/18/google-buys-russian-contextual-ads-service-for-140m/ <comment><USER2> American companies buying prominent Russian assets? What is the world coming to?

<comment><USER3> Innovation,both in terms of technology and business, is not going on only in Silicon Valley ;-).

"Begun", the company Google has bought made $200M on online advertising last year. So, technically Google has bought themselves the second place on Russian adv market. The first one is still being held by Yandex.

<comment><USER2> No, I think it's cool. My comment was just in contrast to the doom and gloom about rich foreigners and sovereign investment funds buying prominent US assets.</comment></comment></comment>


Alibaba Is Investing Huge Sums in an Array of U.S. Tech Companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/technology/alibaba-is-investing-huge-sums-in-an-array-of-us-tech-companies.html <comment><USER2> Alibaba's IPO coming soon could be largest tech IPO ever: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelzakkour/2014/06/27/as- ipo...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelzakkour/2014/06/27/as-ipo- approaches-alibaba-still-a-mystery-to-many-outside-china-the-alibaba-effect- explains-whats-at-stake/)</comment>