Apple, Give Us a "Freedom of Choice" Button - <AUTHOR> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/06/eff-nothing-new-about-iphones-closed-platform

<comment><USER2> Has Apple started suing people for jailbreaking or unlocking their iPhones? The people experimenting with running Android on them?

No?

They don't have to make it _easy_ for you to do anything you want. They can choose what functionality they put in. But they're hardly stopping you from doing whatever you want with the device.

<comment><USER3> This is true. My only bug with apple right now is the lack of transparency in the App Store Submission Process. The rest is really their decision, the hacking community is relatively free to do what they want, and apple knows it's good for them.

<comment><USER4> While I tend to agree, deciding whether an app will probably get allowed in doesn't take serious brain power. Does it duplicate something that Apple spends tons of R&D money on (e.g. phone capabilities, "redoing" what the iPhone normally does, etc)? Probably avoid stepping on too many toes. Do you use private APIs? I'd rewrite. Is it illicit? Good luck on that one.

<comment><USER5> You forgot these actual reasons apps have been rejected:

\- Is it a picture frame?

\- Does it include political cartoons?

\- Does it include an ideograph of a clock?

\- Does it do the exact same thing as the previous version, which was accepted?

\- Does it include legally licensed song lyrics that mention sex (with the appropriate "adult content" black mark)?

\- Does it display an unoffensive screenshot from a Mac?

\- Does it allow access to the Internet through public APIs?

\- Does it mention the price of the Voyager spacecraft?

\- Does it use the extremely popular OpenFeint network and the reviewer happens to be in a bad mood that day?

<comment><USER4> I have never seen 1/3 of those reasons and I'd wager there is more to the story than is let on. The problem is you see a developer crying foul when we have no idea - and the app may go on to be "fixed" and then approved. Just because someone writes a blog post as soon as they freak out about being rejected doesn't mean they're correct.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure you have never seen 1/3 of those reasons. That was my point — Apple can and does reject apps for any completely unpredictable, off-the-wall reasons. It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as you made it sound.

Also, can you give an example of a major rejection story where the developer "freaked out about being rejected" and wasn't right? I don't think that happens. Apple usually tells you in no uncertain terms when your submission has been rejected.

And yes, the app may go on to be "fixed" and then approved, or it might not. That doesn't change the fact that it was rejected for a bizarre reason to begin with, in contradiction of your claim that only apps that use private APIs and illegal and confusing apps get turned down. There are many more reasons, a lot of which aren't written down and a lot of which _don't exist yet_. That's the scariest part — Apple will just change their minds. Remember the Great Skin Purge, where they deleted tens of thousands of apps for "showing skin"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's quite simple -- you can choose not to buy an iPhone.

<comment><USER7> Exactly... People should vote with their wallet. Why should Apple be forced to conform to what the EFF thinks is right? If enough people cared about these issues and stopped buying Apple would take notice, but until that happens this is all noise few will hear.

<comment><USER8> Well, the reason groups like the EFF are important is because they're there to raise the issue before it becomes a problem. Sometimes people don't realize how serious a problem is until it bites them in the ass, like the MyFrame developer that defended Apple's approval process up until the point that his app got arbitrarily rejected.[1]

The point of watchdog groups like the EFF is to make some noise and get people to realize they _should_ care about having alternatives.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1394958>

<comment><USER7> I think the EFF has bigger battles to fight: net neutrality, fair use, freedom of speech, etc...

And preemptive to the reply I'll get: apple rejecting an app doesn't infringe on free speech anymore than not getting your letter printed in the NY times.

<comment><USER8> I don't see how those fights preclude the EFF from taking a position on this. It's not like they're litigating against Apple or anything; they're merely pointing out an example of what is essentially a major part of their core mission - "software lock-in is bad."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple doesn't add buttons. It only removes them.

</comment><comment><USER10> >>The principle is simple: just as you get to choose whatever after-market modification you want to make to your car,<<

I'm sorry, but I stopped reading beyond that bit. There is no functioning government regulatory body in this world that would allow exhaust systems without catalytic converters or external wastegates, for example.</comment>


Skype has my account balance as $42M.  I tried asking support for help - <AUTHOR> http://m.imgur.com/gallery/8zQTJ <comment><AUTHOR> "I'm guessing unsigned integer overflow. The range of an unsigned 32 bit number is 4,294,967,295. If their base unit is pennies, that's 42M."

\--rouverius

<comment><USER2> I'd be really surprised if an app like Skype could overlook such a simple bug.

<comment><USER3> Skype wasn't originally written by Microsoft, so who knows how the code looks like. I know the linux client was god awful.

<comment><USER4> BTW, the old linux client (dating back to 2014) still exists and can be downloaded from the official site. It only supports text messages and files, and the messages don't show up in other clients for some reason as if they are not stored in the server side log. Can't explain that one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can you ask for a refund? :)

<comment><USER6> Convert to BTC in small increments and head to a non-Interpol country. ;)

<comment><USER7> It's just... fractions of a penny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If MS/Skype have bug bounties, there might be money to be made in determining the cause.

</comment><comment><USER9> Are you able to spend more than the $.20 you deposited?

<comment><USER10> Maybe if he spent over $.20 his actual balance _would_ overflow to 42M. Just imagine that (and how poor their programming would have to be)!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, grandma overseas does enjoy a chat...</comment>


Ask HN: What's in an IM? - <AUTHOR>

We're a young startup currently seeking investment from VCs.
What do we need to prepare - documentation wise? We've written a comprehensive business plan, an Exec summary with it and also prepared a Powerpoint Presentation. Most of the structure is based on Guy Kawasaki's advised templates/structures.
What now?
Few questions: What is in an Investment Memo (IM)? Is this required?
What does a VC usually require before they make a decision to invest?
This is the first time I've gone through this so any general advice of seeking and securing VC money is appreciated.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Are you going for venture capital or an angel investment? The level of documentation and requirements will be similar, but at the angel level the chips are stacked more in your favor as far as getting meetings and investment. Angels are not going to expect a minimally viable product or traction as much as VCs will.

A few sites to check out:

<http://www.venturehacks.com> <http://www.markpeterdavis.com/>

Every VC is going to be different in what they want and don't want to hear/see. Remember going in that the odds are against you. To increase those odds you can show traction in the market, and at minimum a working product (even if it is not the final product).

Angels and investors are going to want to know about your background (i.e. school, previous work, and any startups you have done in the past).

Essentially it is a dog and pony show where you have to prove to them that you can execute on a product and make a return on their money. While a return is not always going to happen, the more comfortable they are with you, your product, and the chances of making a return on their investment the better off you are.

Get a lawyer, one who is experienced in raising outside investment. There are laws that you must follow when seeking outside investment and having someone familiar with the process is essential. Be ready to spend some money on the lawyer (most lawyers will work with the intent to take their fees off the top of the funding when finalized).

The final thing is it takes time. Keep working on your product and unless you absolutely need money focus on your product more than raising the funds. It could be as short as a couple months or as long as a year or so before you see any funding. Work your connections. The best way into a VC or angel is through connections. Cold calling/emailing is a one and a million chance of getting someone to meet with you.

<comment><USER2> Oh and to answer your question about an investment memo, it is essentially a very brief business plan (1-2 pages) detailing what the investment is for, how it would be structured, etc... I have seen banks ask for them, but never heard of a VC or angel asking for one.

As I said above, focus on the product not on the investment, as you work with angels and VCs they will tell you what they want as far as documentation. The lawyer can then help you formulate those documents. Don't over prepare you are just wasting your time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'll let someone else detail why having a comprehensive business plan isn't necessary, but a good primer for you is the Pitching Hacks book (PDF) by Venture Hacks. It's $9 but worth more than the sproutbean catfart health wrap you'll otherwise spend that on. Some of the things you raise here are brought up in their book -- which is actually more like a guidebook than a "book," per se.

<http://venturehacks.com/pitching></comment>


Greg Egan - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Egan

<comment><AUTHOR> _He specialises in hard science fiction stories with mathematical and quantum ontology themes, including the nature of consciousness. Other themes include genetics, simulated reality, posthumanism, mind uploading, sexuality, artificial intelligence, and the superiority of rational naturalism over religion._

Might be of interest to the HN community.</comment>


AT&T targeting Google Voice to stop "traffic pumping"? - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/att-accused-of-regulatory-capitalism-as-fcc-probes-google-voice.ars

<comment><USER2> _The quote comes from ex-FCC Chair William Kennard, who argued that this kind of capitalism is triggered "when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service."_

Good line.

I think the overall impression most tech people get (because we've all seen this before, in various industries) is that AT&T and other communications carriers are content to sit on their asses (after taxpayers subsidized the creation of their networks) and do whatever it takes to avoid actually working. It sounds stupid when I write it, but that's what it seems like – a lazy dude with no drive to improve. Things are good now, the people in charge make enough money. Why change if we have to? They'll drag their feet, wave their hands, do _anything_ except improve and deliver products, because that shit is _hard_. Let's just dick around with the system to impede everyone else's progress as much as possible, so that we aren't made obsolete as quickly.

<comment><USER3> Good point. I am honestly surprised that the US has any 3G networks at all.

Maybe some day I will be able to buy a data plan that lets me use more than 5G a month.</comment></comment>


The NYPD Was Ticketing Legally Parked Cars; Open Data Put an End to It - <AUTHOR> http://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/144197004989/the-nypd-was-systematically-ticketing-legally <comment><AUTHOR> For people who skip straight to the comments: I couldn't fit it into the title, but the other half of the OP's title is that the author confronted the NYPD with his data analysis and they _thanked_ him _and_ spoke positively about the effect of open data:

> _"Mr. Wellington's analysis identified errors the department made in issuing > parking summonses. It appears to be a misunderstanding by officers on patrol > of a recent, abstruse change in the parking rules. We appreciate Mr. > Wellington bringing this anomaly to our attention...

> _Thanks to this analysis and the availability of this open data, the > department is also taking steps to digitally monitor these types of > summonses to ensure that they are being issued correctly."*

Sure, it's easy to pay lip service to open data and transparency...but I've found for the most part that bureaucracies are generally OK with open data _after it 's been ingrained in their culture_ (which is why it is so amazingly easy to get data from Florida -- they have an IT system that is optimized to handle it -- the employees don't mind fulfilling the requests since it's no skin off their back).

Bloomberg got the ball rolling, and hopefully the momentum continues...I'd be happy with NYC agencies tolerating open data as a status quo...Looking forward to the day when bureaucrats and citizens can get to the point where transparency isn't seen as a zero-sum game.

<comment><USER2> The fact that they thanked him means exactly zero if they don't give back the money that they got from people who were lawfully parked, but still got erroneously fined by the department for reasons that _directly contradict existing law_.

It is easy to give verbal apologies (especially using hedging words like "....recent, abstruse change in the parking rules." If the police are so confused by abstruse changes in the parking rules, how are normal people supposed to understand and obey them?). Monetary ones are more difficult to come by.

[EDIT: To make it clear, I'm not saying the work of 'iquantny hasn't resulted in positive change. It obviously has. Just that the department's response is, in my opinion, not positive enough.]

<comment><USER3> I respectfully disagree.

An error was identified, communicated, and acted upon as a result of open data. Specifically, it became known that due to inadequate training practices patrol officers were unawares of the change whereas parking enforcement were the only ones trained and therefore were not making the same mistake:

> "When the rule changed in 2009 to allow for certain pedestrian ramps to be > blocked by parked vehicles, the department focused training on traffic > agents, who write the majority of summonses."

> "Yet, the majority of summonses written for this code violation were written > by police officers. As a result, the department sent a training message to > all officers clarifying the rule change and has communicated to commanders > of precincts with the highest number of summonses, informing them of the > issues within their command."

So the issue isn't that police were confused so much as their training wasn't updated because of a system failure (training only traffic agents and not patrol officers).

Further they are taking action to monitor the open data themselves to detect future anomalies themselves:

> "Thanks to this analysis and the availability of this open data, the > department is also taking steps to digitally monitor these types of > summonses to ensure that they are being issued correctly."

This is a great step forward regardless of whether or not en-mass refund occur.

To me, a refund would be icing on the cake. And perhaps one will happen (hopefully) this post was published today (May 11, 2016) after all.

As an aside, there is also something to be said about the fact citizens should be aware of their own rights and laws. Any citizen could and should have contested wrongly issued tickets.

<comment><USER4> And I respectfully disagree with you.

Money has been taken from citizens by the authorities in an unlawful manner. Money has to be given back. I don't know what more to say about this matter. If I steal 200$ out of your pocket and you find out, my feeling is you would want your money back, not an apology and my heartfelt assurance that it won't happen again...

<comment><USER5> I am afraid it would cost $2M to try to pay back $1.7M... i think they should first spend their time and $$ in making sure they fix the issues going forward.

<comment><USER6> Find the money somewhere. Take it out of the police chief's pay for all I care. In fact, I don't think just returning the money is enough. The money should be returned with interest as if it were put into a municipal bond.

The worst part is that every time this happens, the taxpayers are on the hook. I think nothing will change as long as wrong decisions doesn't hurt the decision-makers. I don't know how to implement this but something has to give. When in doubt, officers should err on the side of not writing tickets.

Unrelated but our police officers need stronger protection from the insanity of things like quotas. Make it immensely profitable for an officer to whistleblow situations where they are required to collect $n in fines or write n tickets. Make it a federal law and take that money ($10MM per incidence per officer sounds like a good start, the point is it has to be high enough that there won't be peer pressure for an officer to "get in line") from the department. If they can't pay, too bad. The municipality/county doesn't deserve a police force.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> An anecdot: when I lived in Manhattan in 2001, I parked near 61st and 1st, between two differing parking signs. I was clearly very close to one, and much further from another, by at least 50 yards. I got a ticket for illegal parking according to the further sign. Being a broke ex-dot-commer, I was furious, so I photographed and measured everything, and put together a seven page report.

After a long while, I got a response back from the responsible agency, which agreed that I was in compliance with the parking rules, and thus they would reduce the fine from $100 to $40. What??

<comment><USER8> Processing fee. Five bucks plus five per page they had to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In 2011, I was given two parking tickets when legally parked in Boston.

The first ticket was issued for parking in resident street parking without a permit. I was actually parked just after the sign delimiting the resident parking area[1]. I photographed where I was parked and sent in an appeal which was accepted.

A month later, I was parked in the same non-resident street parking and I was issued a ticket for failing to pay a parking meter; the number of the meter I supposedly failed to pay was a LONG block and a half away from where I was parked. Again, I submitted an appeal, but this time it was not accepted.

The friend I was visiting when I received these tickets was a producer for a local television news station. She told the story of these two tickets to their investigative reporter who was interested in the story and was going to inquire about it with the Boston PD. Apparently she didn't get anywhere with the story, but Boston PD did stop sending me failure to pay notifications for the fine.

[1]: This non-resident street parking was not metered.

(EDIT: Foot-note formatting)

<comment><USER10> Nice. I'm just hoping you won't find out one day that they didn't forget in the form of an arrest warrant or something like that for failure to pay. (Disclaimer: I live in Melbourne, Australia, so that could just be the stuff of fiction for what I know).

<comment><USER11> MA will enforce unpaid fines with non-renewal of MA driver's license or vehicle registration. I don't know with which states MA has a reciprocity agreement for that. (And eventually, I think at 3 overdue tickets, your car is eligible for the boot.)

These are civil fines; no arrest warrant will be issued, but I also doubt that just because BPD stopped sending notices that they agree the ticket was bogus and have deleted it. Far more likely is they just stopped sending notices and the ticket is still active.

<comment><USER9> > I also doubt that just because BPD stopped sending notices that they agree > the ticket was bogus and have deleted it. Far more likely is they just > stopped sending notices and the ticket is still active.

I attempted to pay the ticket, it was no longer in the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As the article explained, tickets had been voided when cases were disputed as widely happens in just about every city.

Honestly, if I were a public official reading the comments here, I'd be inclined to just go "Why do I even bother? I explained how, even though the people who hand out most of the parking tickets were educated about the change, many police officers weren't. We'll fix it now."

Sure, rerun the analysis a year or two down the road. If things don't change, that's a story. But this strikes me as a nice use of open data and a reasonable response from the NYPD. You can argue that they should do pro- active refunds but a lot of addresses will have changed and it would be otherwise difficult and expensive. I'm honestly not convinced that's a reasonable expectation.

<comment><USER13> > I'm honestly not convinced that's a reasonable expectation.

It seems reasonable to me - not being allowed to keep money that isn't yours and that you shouldn't have taken (even by mistake), consider the incentives - writing a huge number of false tickets and then returning the money only to those that are willing to go through the trouble of contesting the ticket.

<comment><USER12> Eh. Cities issue parking violations all the time when they shouldn't (partially because the rules can be confusing). And, at the same time, many, many people get off with parking violations because they weren't caught. It's hard for me to get excited about a specific group of non-violations because they happened to occur in high incidence spots as uncovered by an examination of public data.

I'm not opposed to the city making a modest effort to refund money to this subset of individuals. Though if it does so I expect it will be purely because they see it as a good PR play.

<comment><USER14> So, it's OK to punish innocent people because guilty people go free? That's your argument?

<comment><USER15> I think the point is that sometimes fighting tooth & nail out of principle for an issue of minor relevance may not be worth it if it damages the goodwill of those making a big and relevant change for good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems that there are multiple failures here. 1\. Designated approved cutouts should be an easier process to obtain (just try getting a stop sign/crosswalk approved in the city and you'll understand the black hole that is the DOT approval process) 2\. Over eager officers issuing tickets.

Pedestrian cutouts are there for a real purpose, namely accessibility for people with disabilities and wheelchairs. While it sucks for cars to get ticketed, I for one share no compassion with those people blocking cutouts in general, because they are not offering courtesy for those people who require these cutouts to live.

Edit: For those suggesting that the crosswalks in the middle of the block go "nowhere" consider the following. a wheelchair user parks his/her car and exits the car. he/she will have to cross all the way to the ends of the block in order to get out of the street into safety. even it may seem like it's going nowhere, there is a real functional purpose.

<comment><USER12> How does the city designate cutouts that are not approved for parking for disabled access, etc.? I noticed in the article that: "(Yellow paint has no meaning in NYC traffic enforcement, and the spot has no crosswalk)"

<comment><USER16> The traffic rule book only states (§4-01):

Crosswalk. (i) Marked crosswalk. That part of a roadway defined by two parallel lines or highlighted by a pattern of lines (perpendicular, parallel or diagonal used either separately or in combination) that is intended to guide pedestrians into proper crossing paths. (ii) Unmarked crosswalk. That part of a roadway, other than a marked crosswalk, which is included within the extensions of the sidewalk lines between opposite sides of the roadway at an intersection, provided that (A) the roadway crosses through the intersection rather than ending at the intersection, and/or (B) all traffic on the opposing roadway is controlled by a traffic control device.*

Basically it is approved if there are two parallel lines (marked crosswalk) or no parallel lines (unmarked crosswalk) and is NOT a T-intersection or if there is a traffic control device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> NYPD ticketed Casey Neistat for not riding in the bike lane, a viral video put an end to it. ;)

[http://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ](http://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ)

<comment><USER18> While I think that's a good thing, this is different from that in an interesting way. In this case, the government opted-in to releasing data to the public. And beyond that they accepted the "government bug report" from a citizen data analyst and (1) issued a correction and (2) vowed to monitor this data item going forward.

A viral video is IMO not very different from having the local news media shame the government into taking the right action. While these videos have helped us reign in the systematic racism and violence of the police here in the US, it's fantastic to see the government acting in such a responsible and effective manner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been working on something like this for over a year now for Chicago. Most of that time's been spent just simply doing data cleanups.

My most recent update from Monday: [https://plot.ly/~red- bin/6.embed](https://plot.ly/~red-bin/6.embed)

Pretty fucking proud of that, not gonna lie.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a good reminder that San Francisco went the other direction and blocked Fixed: [http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-fixes- yo...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/12/fixed-the-app-that-fixes-your-parking- tickets-gets-blocked-in-san-francisco-oakland-l-a/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Did NYPD refund fines from erroneously paid citations?

<comment><USER22> No, that would mean admitting wrongdoing by their officers and that will never happen.

It's also a nice revenue stream and would expose the internal pressures to raise money through ticketing by management and administrators.

<comment><USER23> They admit wrongdoing in the quote.

<comment><USER24> But there is nothing in the story stating NYC is returning the effectively stolen, as per their admission to wrongdoing, money.

<comment><USER25> It's not stolen, that implies an intent to do wrong. Per the NYPD's response (and given their candor, I find no reason to believe otherwise) it's clear this was a training issue and the officers writing the tickets were doing their duty to the best of their knowledge at the time.

And having said that, yes I believe the money should be returned, and probably will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It might make sense to focus on the core issue of pedestrian safety and curb cuts. As someone who rolls to most of my destinations on wheels blocked ramps can be a major inconvenience that might conceivably compete with parking convenience as an issue.

</comment><comment><USER27> That's a shame. Parking in front of a handicapped-access ramp is a shitty thing to do even if it is legal.

<comment><USER12> It's either legal to park in a spot or not legal to park in a spot. It doesn't work and certainly doesn't scale to have spots where "maybe I shouldn't park there because I might get in someone's way even though it's a legal spot."

<comment><USER28> The article mentions that regulations recently changed to allow this, maybe the cops are just using common sense?

<comment><USER29> 2009 is hardly 'recently'...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why risk parking in a questionable area like a ramp cutout when some streets have an entire extra parking lane (indicated by a picture of a bicycle)?

<comment><USER31> All these downvotes, apparently nobody can appreciate a bit of satire :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Dozens of motorcyclists in downtown Boston recently had a problem like this. There are 12-hour motorcycle meters (25 cents an hour, woo!), but a parking cop kept issuing tickets for "Over 2 hour parking" at those meters. They assumed they were like the car meters.

I challenged my stack of them, and they relented, but refused to actually write me back with how/why this was happening, and how they were upgrading their training.

What gets me, is that I doubt they did a search through their system for all such tickets, and then immediately issued refunds- or put through a software patch on their ticketing system to disallow those tickets at motorcycle meters.

Refunding can't be that hard.

<comment><USER33> Refunding can be very hard if you have to write the check that you are hoping you won't have to write.

<comment><USER32> Sounds like having to pay an unexpected parking ticket that you weren't budgeting for ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Sad to see that a majority of these bad tickets are in poorer neighborhoods. It seems most of Manhattan (below the Bronx) is relatively ok.

<comment><USER35> I thought that too, but we don't know how many of these types of spots exist in Manhattan vs. Brooklyn, it could just be that the poorer neighborhoods happen to have more sidewalk ramps. Would have to do more analysis on the data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> So, i would wait till they stop before i would declare victory :) Certainly a great step forward, but my cynical view, after dealing with tons and tons and tons of city governments (it used to be my job):

It's very easy to issue statements saying they've solved the problem. Rarely do they actually solve the problem :)

</comment><comment><USER37> How do you know that these tickets, given _at_ locations of pedestrian ramps, were not actually due to other things... like uncommon street sweeping hours or those pesky snow parking restrictions that are so hard to keep track of. Is the reason for citation available in the data?

<comment><USER38> > But thanks to NYC's Open Data portal, I was able to look at the most common > parking spots in the City where cars were ticketed _for blocking pedestrian > ramps._

<comment><USER37> To clarify, I was hoping to see validation with reference to the specific citation code(s), etc.

For example, open the 2014 data link [0] included at the bottom of the post. When I run:

        Filter >
          Violation Description >
            Contains >
              ramp

There are no results.

It's possible there's a bug in the tool or that the violations are encoded using different language, but it's not something that's obvious to me.

0: [https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Parking- Violat...](https://data.cityofnewyork.us/City-Government/Parking-Violations- Issued-Fiscal-Year-2014-August-/jt7v-77mi)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> In Russian big cities commercial car evacuation for misparked often bribes policeman to cover their activity. But resistance is futile and there is helping app against that [http://peapp.ru](http://peapp.ru).

</comment><comment><USER40> We need this in SF. SFMTA ticketed my car for no reason before; I tried their "appeal" process, only to get a response that sounded like they didn't even read what I said.

<comment><USER41> I once received a parking ticket timestamped 2 in the afternoon. Funny thing is, that day I drove across the GG Bridge and went hiking - I had photographic evidence of crossing the bridge in the morning and the toll to prove I returned in the evening. Therefore I and my car were not in the city at 2 pm and could not have parked illegally.

Appeal denied.

<comment><USER42> Its quite easy to leave SF via the GGB in the morning, reenter SF via any of a variety of different routes and get a ticket at 2pm, leave SF again, and reenter via the GGB in the evening.

Now, if you had described evidence of the specific location your car was at the time of the ticket, and the appeal was still denied, that might be a different story.

<comment><USER40> Heh, please, don't defend these POS. They're cheating and they know it.

I got a ticket for the car being "double parked"; I sent a picture of how it was parked (right next to the curb in a legal spot). It was a rainy day, so you could even see that the car must've been in that spot for a while -- it's not like I moved it there to take a picture.

Later, I got a prewritten appeal denied notice -- it wasn't even specific to double parking, and mentioned none of the evidence I sent.

I also have several friends with similar experiences.

So, please, let's fire them, instead of making improbable excuses.

<comment><USER43> Here in the Netherlands, if a response to your appeal contains evidence that the handling officer hasn't read your appeal properly or does not give an appropriate answer to each of your objections, it is grounds to get the ticket thrown out in court EVEN if it was a legitimate ticket.

An example: If you object to the calibration of the SPECS camera (e.g camera's that track you over a longer piece of road to determine your average speed) and the officer responds saying that the radar equipment was properly calibrated, you can have the ticket thrown out as it was not radar equipment that ticketed you and thus proper care wasn't shown during the handling of your appeal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> To me this is an example of how transparency through information services is winning. Eventually this will pervade every aspect of government. We are going to be in a much better place when we can see what our government is doing in fine detail; spending, enforcement, funding(think campaigns), voting history, etc. The technology is there now but we haven't quite reached the point where it's all on the table and expected/demanded.

</comment><comment><USER45> "..., the department focused training on traffic agents, ..." -> The police got trained, but we are suppose to just know the law. How unjust.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's not surprising that a small change like this could be enabled with open data, but big changes? There's been plenty of data related to medicare fraud, veteran's admin fraud, etc, but changing big things like that appears to be a no go even though the cost is tremendous in terms of affected lives and money.

<comment><USER47> Small steps. I think there's a knee-jerk reaction (and anecdotally I've found government organisations to be particularly guilty of this) of taking analysis like this as embarrassing criticism that needs to be rejected, not embraced.

EDIT: Sorry, my point there was - as more things like this happen we should see increased engagement from orgs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> After recently dealing with the various governments / nationalised businesses from a number of countries I can safely say that I am well and truly fed up with their inane bureaucracy.

This article doesn't surprise me: where the recent swath of internet companies seem to extoll individual agency/ownership, nationalised companies seem to preach the exact opposite - a problem is never the individual's responsibility and people seem perfectly happy to ship a borken status quo. As such, ludicrous oversights like this are a regular occurrence rather than a gross intolerable negligence.

This is not even yet mentioning how awful the UX is for the customer who has to interface with these institutions.

While it may be very easy to discard my point as rife with cliches, it's worth noting that we have become very spoilt by ruthlessly frictionless (yet equally effective) customer-facing tech products. The opportunities to streamline processes and save time and money for state-owned interfaces (both online and offline). As an example, I recently had to queue in a hospital with my sick mother for an hour, to be told that that individual couldn't process our particular issue and that we would have to join the back of the adjacent queue (not there was zero signposting whatsoever). This is one example and not a criticism on healthcare, but what happened to service-driven processes?

Instead we, the public, have to live with the dire reality of inefficient (and increasinly apparently indifferent) government services as the gap between private and state run services continues to expand as we grow increasingly disenfranchised.

</comment><comment><USER49> The best defense we have against bad actors in government (whether intentional or accidental) is ubiquitous public surveillance -- not the government spying on the people, but the people monitoring the government. A cameraphone in nearly every pocket is a good start.

</comment><comment><USER50> You can't park in peace in NY. They hired h1b traffic officers too, I've heard the Americans traffic officers weren't aggressive enough.

</comment><comment><USER51> Why not [http://www.petition2congress.com/](http://www.petition2congress.com/)

</comment><comment><USER52> The T intersection at Virginia Avenue is not legal. The ramps serve an unmarked crosswalk as exists at all intersections in NY state.

<comment><USER53> Apparently it is legal to park there if it's not a marked crosswalk: [http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/parking- regulation...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/parking- regulations.shtml)

<comment><USER52> It is state law. A municipality can't override it.

<comment><USER14> Do you have a state law reference that covers T intersections?

<comment><USER52> NY Vehicle and traffic Article 32

        S 1202. Stopping,  standing or parking prohibited in specified places.
          1. Stop, stand or park a vehicle:
            d. On a cross walk;

          2.  Stand  or  park  a  vehicle,  whether  occupied  or  not,  except
              momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers:
            b. Within twenty feet of a cross walk at  an  intersection,  unless  a
               different  distance  is indicated by official signs, markings or parking
               meters;

Formal definition of a crosswalk in Article 1:

        S 110. Crosswalk.
          (a)  That  part  of  a roadway at an intersection included within the
          connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of
          the highway between the curbs or, in  the  absence  of curbs, between
          the edges of the traversable roadway.
          (b)  Any  portion  of  a  roadway  at  an  intersection  or  elsewhere
          distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other  markings
          on the surface.

In other words there are crosswalks at every intersection whether marked or not. Crosswalks elsewhere must be marked to be recognized as such. That is why the unmarked curb cuts in the middle of a block don't count for parking violations. T intersections are not special in any way and are subject to the same rules as all others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Headline -- "The NYPD Was Ticketing Legally Parked Cars; Open Data Put an End to It."

Expanded & Explicit Translated Headline -- "Some NYPD Officers Were Cutting Corners in a Profession Where Cutting Corners is a Relatively Big Deal. Some People With Computers Did a Fancy Search and Now Those Cops Are Rightfully Getting in Trouble and the Shit Is Stopping"

You're welcome.

<comment><USER38> Nobody's getting in trouble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Didn't ticket enough. I say, ticket all the cars just for being on the street. We need more public transit.

</comment><comment><USER56> Nice. Something like this happened to me in 1979 in Berkeley. You can infer how angry I got. I was too busy, at the end of grad school, to even contest it.

</comment><comment><USER57> Whenever I visit NY I dont assume anything is legal. If someone tells me walking barefoot is illegal in NY I would believe it. After all they kill people for sharing smoke and all.

<comment><USER58> It sure seems like I hear about a lot more authoritarian nonsense like this in the east-coast (namely northeast) cities, and not nearly as much in the west- coast cities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I don't think that's what "systematically" means.

<comment><USER60> I do? When you're collecting two million dollars a year from ticketing legally parked cars, at less than $200 per ticket, you're not making a minor one-time error. That's a systematic practice (or, depending on your point of view, a minor one-time error that happened to be repeated 10,000 times every year).

<comment><USER59> The rules of the system had changed and part of the system was unaware of the change. The system was not working as a whole to intentionally ticket legally parked vehicles. It was not systematic. And it's a clickbaity title. My comment is getting downvoted to oblivion because people don't know the definition of the word.

<comment><USER14> The system did not stop ticketing parkers after the law changed. The system was broken, causing systematic problems</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cargo: Rust's community crate host - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/11/20/Cargo.html

<comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8637493](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8637493).</comment>


Why we need Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/id/203361

<comment><USER2> Repost of <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=671977>

<comment><AUTHOR> Missed it.. Wonder how come HN allowed it through..

<comment><USER3> The other one went to the printer friendly.

Basically, the dupe filter doesn't try very hard. It counts www.x.com and x.com as different stories.</comment></comment></comment>


Micropreneur Academy Founder Rob Walling speaking in LA-Wed,10/20  - <AUTHOR> http://sgvdotnet.org/2010/10/oct-20th-turning-your-idea-into-a-software-product-w-rob-walling/ Micropreneur academy founder, entrepreneurship blogger, author and speaker Rob Walling be speaking to San Gabriel Valley .NET Developers group on Wed, 20th Oct. This is a Green Dot sponsored event. There is no entry fee and the event is free for attendees.
Oct 20th – Turning Your Idea Into a Software Product w/ Rob Walling
Abstract: Rob Walling takes a detailed look at the nuts and bolts of launching a software product while working full-time. Topics include: our beloved startup myths, what you didn't know about taking outside investment, the reason most products never launch, the most likely reason your product fail, how to evaluate a product idea without spending money, and the 3 best approaches to marketing your product (hint: none of them are social media).
About the Presenter: Rob Walling is a Microsoft MVP in ASP.NET and a ten-year veteran of software entrepreneurship. Rob owns several revenue-generating products including ASP.NET invoicing software DotNetInvoice and runs the first online membership community for developer entrepreneurs and microISVs, called the Micropreneur Academy. Rob blogs to about 10,000 monthly readers at Software by Rob and is the author of numerous technical articles for asp.netPRO magazine, asp101.com, dotnetbips.com and others.
Meeting Agenda: * 6:00p Mixer/Networking/Pizza * 6:30p Presentation Starts * 7:30p Break * 7:45p Presentation Resumes * 8:45p Raffle
Directions: Park in parking structure at 570 E Huntington Dr, Monrovia, CA 91016 . Meeting is across the street in 605 E Huntington Dr. Once parked, use the overhead walk way to get to the building. The meeting will be right inside the door after the walk way. <comment><AUTHOR> Abstract: Rob Walling takes a detailed look at the nuts and bolts of launching a software product while working full-time. Topics include: our beloved startup myths, what you didn't know about taking outside investment, the reason most products never launch, the most likely reason your product fail, how to evaluate a product idea without spending money, and the 3 best approaches to marketing your product (hint: none of them are social media).

About the Presenter: Rob Walling is a Microsoft MVP in ASP.NET and a ten-year veteran of software entrepreneurship. Rob owns several revenue-generating products including ASP.NET invoicing software DotNetInvoice and runs the first online membership community for developer entrepreneurs and microISVs, called the Micropreneur Academy. Rob blogs to about 10,000 monthly readers at Software by Rob and is the author of numerous technical articles for asp.netPRO magazine, asp101.com, dotnetbips.com and others. Meeting Agenda: * 6:00p Mixer/Networking/Pizza * 6:30p Presentation Starts * 7:30p Break * 7:45p Presentation Resumes * 8:45p Raffle Directions: Park in parking structure at 570 E Huntington Dr, Monrovia, CA 91016 . Meeting is across the street in 605 E Huntington Dr. Once parked, use the overhead walk way to get to the building. The meeting will be right inside the door after the walk way. This is a Green Dot sponsored event. There is no entry fee and the event is free for attendees.</comment>


Scientists accidentally stumble on possible way to slow brain's ageing process - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-12/scientists-may-have-worked-out-how-to-keep-brains-young/7924796 <comment><USER2> It seems crazy that such a simple procedure could be so effective given how complicated the brain is.</comment>


Scientists Pit Sourdough Against White Bread - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/sourdough-versus-white-bread/529260/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Sourdough is purported to be healthier, have a lower glycemic index, etc. but this effect was not observed. They speculate that it may differ from person to person based on microbiome.

If I'd known that was the result I wouldn't have clicked through. The title is fucking idiotic.

<comment><USER3> Plus, other researchers are skeptical of the results due to the low sample size (n = 20).

<comment><USER4> It exposes the high amount of variability in even simple nutritional experiments. At least it is honest. Unlike some research that suggest x is good by testing on similarly small samples.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It would be great to see a larger study, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Something I thought about fermented foods is that they tend to have more bioavailable nutrients. So, sourdough contains less phytic acid than quick breads, making it so the nutrition in the bread can be digested more easily. Amongst other things. If this is true, that seems like a good enough reason to choose it. Flavor and texture is good enough too, really.

The point about individuals discovering what works for them is critical. One of the best things you can do for yourself is just pay attention to your diet and how it makes you feel. Maybe the crappiest white bread is just fine for you. Maybe it's totally not. I believe there aren't many absolute truths about nutrition, so often the onus is on individuals to try and discover these things about themselves.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just a warning, as noted in the article, this is nothing to base a diet on. But I wouldn't necessarily base a diet on the epidemiological studies alone either.

A click-bait headline on nutrition scientific publication is a way for the media to get ad revenue, not a way to inform.

That said, the article did a pretty good job at informing on some really interesting science. It puts some good upper bounds one could expect in the population this was drawn from. Other populations, or sub populations could have larger possible effects.

The critiques are basically that this study should not be the end-all view. Of course some one should do an n=20 on this type of profiling before expanding to a larger cohort. And it seems that there's a lot to make a larger study really interesting.

</comment><comment> mark-r So people on average are average. That's not surprising at all. It bothers me that so few studies are built to identify which individuals will see a difference and which will not. Rather they assume all individuals are identical and will have identical reactions.

<comment><USER4> To properly detect subgroups you need much larger sample sizes, in thousands...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Outside of this not-really-helpful study, I can say that sourdoughs do tend to have a longer shelf life without preservatives; they resist staling and mold better than white bread, all things being equal. Commercial bread usually has preservatives added to balance this out, but it won't work out the same.

I've found sourdoughs, especially big miches, will actually taste better after 2 or 3 days. Commercial packaged breads are usually a straight downhill slope.

Source: direct experience, various baking books, historical info.

</comment><comment><USER8> The trial only lasted for 1 week each way and contained a sample of 20. I wouldn't be making any strong conclusions based on this.</comment>


Study: Loneliness, Social Isolation Greater Health Problem in US Than Obesity - <AUTHOR> https://www.studyfinds.org/loneliness-social-isolation-alone-obesity/ <comment><USER2> Loneliness is a psychological problem masquerading as a social one.

Look, there are people all around us. Neighborhood streets have, what, 50 people on them? People congregate at churches, bars, coffee shops, even Wal- Marts.

Loneliness is a self-inflicted problem. I'm not saying that to belittle it, I'm saying it because the reasons most people give for being lonely have nothing to do with the actual reasons.

Real, authentic human connections banish loneliness with a ruthless effectiveness. And you can make one with anyone. But we never want to make an authentic human connection with just anyone. We place conditions on the people we're willing to get close to. And paint ourselves into a very lonely corner by doing it.

I used to get lonely a lot in my mid-twenties. I had a bar I went to, a coffee shop I frequented, and good friends at both of them. But I was still lonely. It took a lot of self-inquiry, but eventually I realized that I didn't have a loneliness problem, I had a _status_ problem that was presenting as loneliness. I wasn't seeing my life as having turned out the way I wanted it to, so I was beating myself up over it.

Psychological problems respond really well to talk therapy. Unfortunately that's not a very good solution. We don't have the resources to give everybody with the problem therapy. Instead I think we need to adopt a similar approach that's being used for suicide prevention. Train "gatekeepers" to identify at- risk individuals and get them the help they need, and increase awareness in the general public.

I wish we could do more. But without massive a public investment in psychological health, personalized treatment will remain a luxury solution for those who can afford it.

There's also the problem that, even if the infrastructure were there, that doesn't mean people will take advantage of it. Loneliness is tied very closely to the pride part of the brain, nobody wants to admit they have a problem and seek out help for it.

<comment><USER3> It's one thing to hang out with friends at a coffee shop and beat yourself up over life not turning out the way you wanted it to.

It's quite another thing not to have any friends.

Most of the people in the coffee shops around here have their noses buried in their laptops or books, and when they talk to people they mostly talk to friends who they went to the coffee shop with. Very few people are actually meeting new people and making new friends with random people at coffee shops.

Bars are geared towards hanging out with people you already know, or hitting on strangers. I'm not sure how many people are making new friends there, unless they're relatively extroverted.

Therapy these days is kind of weird. Because insurance companies don't want to pay much, it's geared towards short-term, behavior-oriented therapy. That might help with certain conditions like phobias, but I'm not sure how much it can help with deeper issues. There are other types of therapies, but because insurance mostly doesn't cover them, they're not really practical for most people (not to mention that they're out of fashion these days, as most therapists want to practice CBT because that's what the insurance covers and that's what they're taught in school as being "scientific", "modern", and "evidence-based" \-- even when there's evidence it doesn't actually help).

I do think the modern world, especially for people who spend a lot of time online or consuming a lot of media like TV, movies, and games, can be pretty lonely, or at least devoid of deep human contact. I'm not sure what the solution is, apart from unplugging and spending a lot of time and effort in making connections. But being psychologically ready to do that in the first place is an achievement in itself.

<comment><USER4> Mind linking to some of the compelling evidence against CBT?

<comment><USER3> [http://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/bruce-wampold- psychot...](http://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/bruce-wampold- psychotherapy-effectiveness)

<comment><USER5> That doesn't say that CBT doesn't help, but that all therapy helps equally:

> With some qualifications. I would put the _differences_ between various > types of psychotherapy at very close to zero percent... It turns out that > treatment is just as effective without the particular ingredient. ...As long > as what they're doing is believable, accepted, is given by a therapist who's > skilled and believes in the treatment as well, the treatment tends to go > well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Loneliness and obesity have a common origin, or at least significantly overlapping causes. They both derive from living in an environment that is a) substantially different from what we are evolved for and b) loaded with social pressures and saturated with advertising that pressures people into making bad choices.

There's no way you can argue that obesity is anything other than a conflict between the environment we evolved for, and the one we live in. Anywhere you go in America, you are surrounded by cheap empty calories, sugar and white flour, both highly addictive substances, and also surrounded by advertising urging consumption of the above. For us to _not_ have an obesity epidemic would be astonishing.

By the same token, the only kind of negotiating power the modern worker has in finding a good salary is the power to quit, and so people quit often and early, which leads to them moving frequently away from the friends they've managed to find. All of us are also surrounded by messages telling us that for our lives to mean anything we must work longer, and spend more money, which doesn't leave much time for forging social bonds. Again, you can argue that nobody is _forcing_ you to make these choices- but for us to have an epidemic of loneliness is completely unsurprising.

<comment><USER7> > There's no way you can argue that obesity is anything other than a conflict > between the environment we evolved for, and the one we live in

I'll bite. Obesity occurs because our food is too cheap. Especially in the US, our food is horrendously cheap for a ton of calories. I (by some mistake) bought a $4 taco the other day that was about 1000 calories (and quite good).

We went from having people dying from hunger, to having too much food available for extremely low prices. I eat on about $50 a week and live like a damned king - fresh gourmet bread, chicken and steak twice a day, hand folded pasta, imported olive oil, etc.

A few hundred years ago and you were doing well to have some soup and a piece of bread on a daily basis. Now I can get a decent bottle of wine for below $8.

> By the same token, the only kind of negotiating power the modern worker has > in finding a good salary is the power to quit, and so people quit often and > early, which leads to them moving frequently away from the friends they've > managed to find.

I don't think that's it either. I think, just like food has gotten to be too cheap and too readily accessible for our primate brains, we've managed to fake having friends. I can send a facebook friend request and get it accepted by anyone, I can have a drink with coworkers after work, or talk over the water cooler about game of thrones - and none of those are meaningful friends.

Again, it's too "cheap" to form faux relationships. There's a (probably entirely unsourced) quote that it takes about 18 months to know a person. How many people do you spend quality, non-work time with, at least one or twice a month, for at least two years? For most people that may not even include their spouse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This link appears to be little more than a reworded version of the APA press release [1]. I'm still not sure where the actual study is.

[1] [http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/lonely- die.as...](http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/lonely-die.aspx)

<comment><USER9> [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691614568352](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691614568352)

Done by a Prof. at BYU

edit: Here's the original BYU new article as well: [https://news.byu.edu/news/prescription-living-longer- spend-l...](https://news.byu.edu/news/prescription-living-longer-spend-less- time-alone)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I feel like this also plays into, and off of, political division. I have had a great number of people who would have been friends, or at least acquaintances, ex me completely for one moment of political disagreement. I also figure the more isolated you become from direct human contact, the more the increasingly- tailored information you see confirms your own dumb ideas. These dumb ideas then become your deepest-held convictions, and you ex the people around you because of just how disturbing the disagreement seems.

In addition, finding people to date and have romantic relationships is pretty weird these days. On the one hand, there are dating apps, which seem like they would give you a lot of opportunity to meet new people, but mostly just give you enough information about people to swipe left. If you're a guy, also can no longer court the single women at your employer (even from other departments) without potentially imperiling your entire livelihood.

Most of the guys I talk to from a generation or two before me say they met their lifelong friends through a friend or through somebody they were dating, often through people they no longer talk to.

It seems like there are a lot of factors, mundane and complex, that could contribute to isolation these days, especially if you're a 7 or below.

</comment><comment><USER11> Can confirm, am loneliness.

<comment><USER12> My heart's with you. Email in profile

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What is with the influx of link-bait articles on this website? This is y-combinator not The Sun tabloid.

</comment><comment><USER14> And the causality can be linked to websites like Facebook as easily as cancer to cigarettes.

<comment><USER15> I'd say it's more like the link between secondhand smoke and cancer, which is to say widely believed and seriously overstated.

This stuff was trending upward far before social media. See e.g. Putnam in Bowling Alone for a far more convincing explanation.

Facebook is the snake oil you're being sold as the cure for something that was already on its way up.

<comment><USER16> You're misinformed when it comes to secondhand smoke. From the NIH:

"The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent."

"There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

\-- [https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes- prevention/risk/t...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes- prevention/risk/tobacco/second-hand-smoke-fact-sheet)

<comment><USER15> Not really the point of this thread. Analogies should elucidate, not distract. My bad.

Maybe we'll get a chance to argue it another time :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> From Ivan Illich's "Deschooling Society" (written in 1970): "In these essays, I will show that the institutionalization of values leads inevitably to physical pollution, social polarization, and psychological impotence: three dimensions in a process of global degradation and modernized misery. I will explain how this process of degradation is accelerated when nonmaterial needs are transformed into demands for commodities; when health, education, personal mobility, welfare, or psychological healing are defined as the result of services or "treatments"."

</comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps digital interaction can help alleviate the negative symptoms of loneliness and social isolation. One can join any community which shares their interests and interact in real-time.

[https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/IRL](https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/IRL) [https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Creative](https://www.twitch.tv/directory/game/Creative)

However, I am unsure if virtualization of social interaction is beneficial in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER19> Don't think the US can match Japan for loneliness/isolation.

<comment><USER20> I don't know. When I was living there, interpersonal relationship among Americans always seemed very shallow and greedy. Generally the first contact was very welcoming, then, nothing beyond that. It felt as if any socialization was first and foremost a kind of investment. If after a probe, the ROI did not looked promising, the line would go dead almost instantly. I remember very well asking myself how such a society could not eventually lead to very lonely people. Fortunately, I was not looking for friends, because I did not bring back so many from there, and most of them are actually first generation immigrants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Witt: Do you ever feel lonely?

Welsh: Only around people

</comment><comment><USER22> Humans aren't wired to drown in interactions with strangers all day.

</comment><comment><USER23> yeah... people

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwjLCQLSsAw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwjLCQLSsAw)</comment>


Pittsburgh's AlphaLab to host SuperHappyDevHouse clone on Oct. 2nd - <AUTHOR> http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:2-KCULLT6xEJ:devhousepgh.org/

<comment><USER2> I was at the first two, at the Rivers Club and Creative Treehouse. It wasn't what I expected. I was expecting a place where a bunch of hackers got together to work on a quick project for a charity. It was really just a mini "unconference".

Not that that's a bad thing... I'd feel out of place with the coding.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The actual DevHouse Pittsburgh site <http://devhousepgh.org> is down ...

If you aren't familiar with SuperHappyDevHouse see <http://superhappydevhouse.org/>.</comment>


Not All Queues Compose - <AUTHOR> https://www.notion.so/whole-sum-parts-099504c4e4234b55b9d5189704ff3fc8?p=9c2bfcf2910f46ceae4af6ba4fada83b <comment><USER2> Traditionally, last-in-first-out data structures are called "stacks" to distinguish them from queues. In this tradition, "queue" only refers to first- in-first-out data structures.

<comment><AUTHOR> Point taken, though I like to think of stacks as one of many ways of implementing LIFO behavior.

<comment><USER2> I used "stack" to name the LIFO logic sequence not an implementation idiom. Linked list, pointer into sequential memory array, or restaurant plates have a congruent dimension that "stack" abstracts over within the ordinary computing tradition.

To me, your observation of the non-composability of stacks seems related to the ability of push-down automata and turing machines to compute more complex inputs than the finite automata (and equivalents).

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


Pentagon Spent $5 Billion on Weapons on the Eve of the Shutdown - <AUTHOR> http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/01/on_the_eve_of_the_government_shutdown_the_pentagon_spent_billions_on_weapons <comment><USER2> Don't single out the pentagon, the whole government acts this way

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-congress-fights- ov...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-congress-fights-over-the- budget-agencies-go-on-their-use-it-or-lose-it-shopping- sprees/2013/09/28/b8eef3cc-254c-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html)

<comment><USER3> This seems like it's the usual "use it or lose it" budget spending pattern that happens on the last day of the fiscal year. This is more obvious when looking at the sidebar graphic: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the- annual-agency-bat...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-annual- agency-battle-to-spend-the-rest-of-their- budget/2013/09/28/3121d6d0-289e-11e3-bae5-e0807a60a6aa_graphic.html)

<comment><USER4> A lot of it is paperwork and bureaucracy making a false perception. Purchasers make requests to procurement all summer. Procurement backs up, then pulls massive OT in the last few days to get it out the door.

Part of it is also "parking" in contracts. What's shown as "spending" isn't just stocking up on unneeded widgets for the sake of spending, but committing to contracts that will use it over the next couple years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Government awards new contracts at the start of the new fiscal year. News at 11.

What happens, and this is true of any organization where your budget is set and allocated by somebody else, is that you have to show that your organization actually needs the budget it was allocated last year by spending or at least committing it all. It sends a signal that this year, when you say you need $x you actually need $x. Coming in under budget in this case, say $x-$k means that a signal is sent that you can probably come in under budget again next year and you'll just get $x-$k to start with since they can use $k somewhere else.

If you actually came in at $x-$k near the end of the FY? Spend $k on anything and everything in sight to bulk up your numbers because you've probably requested $x+$q for next year and have $0 left at the end is a good signal that you could do more with more.

Also, with the shutdown have an indeterminate end, nobody knows how long it'll be before they can award important contracts so if they can clear those out ahead of time they will.

</comment><comment><USER6> I seemed to get two nag screens that I couldn't work out how to close so here's a cache without them: [http://web.archive.org/web/20131001183734/http://killerapps....](http://web.archive.org/web/20131001183734/http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/01/on_the_eve_of_the_government_shutdown_the_pentagon_spent_billions_on_weapons)

Edit: Blocking Javascript on the website with the No Script add-on should probably work too.

</comment><comment><USER7> To get around FP paywall, use Firefox -> Web Developer -> Inspect to delete the translucent element over the article, then copy paste into notepad.

<comment><USER8> Or create a bookmarklet pointing to:

        javascript:$('#globalPaywallWrap,#TB_window,#TB_overlay').css('display','none')

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not that surprising that lots of spending happens at the end of the quarter, right? There is implied misconduct here but no real evidence that this is a weird pattern.

</comment><comment><USER10> Well, each department spends the money it gets allocated. The timing looks unfortunate, but I see no reason for making a connection and implying a misconduct.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why was this story submitted? It's not Hacker News.

[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Yes, some people love to talk politics all day long, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, this isn't the proper forum.

<comment><USER12> I don't know why this was downvoted.

<comment><USER13> Any post asking "Why is this on HN?" is going to be automatically down-voted by those who believe that the parent commenter should have pressed the 'flag' button instead of commenting.

<comment><USER11> I usually only flag spam. I also posted the guidelines, so people reading the thread could read them. We are getting a lot of political threads these days, and I'm not sure new people understand that political posts aren't good.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


High Performance Django Videos - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1704706557/high-performance-django-videos?ref=email <comment><USER2> I still don't get the appeal of these types of videos. What's wrong with an article as a set of instructions?

I mean in the context of performance tuning, all you'll be looking at is a shell. I understand some people prefer a visual approach to learning but I don't see any added benefit in producing this type of information in an animated format.</comment>