Ask HN: C vs C++ - <AUTHOR> As a fledgling programmer, I need some advice. I made a list of languages to learn by  next year and on the top of the list is C/C++ (figured that's a good place to start). However, a buddy of mine, an experienced programmer, suggested I drop C++ and just move on to JAVA after C. When asked why, he said 'C++ is way too complicated and error-ridden to serve any real purpose. C is more than enough'<p>Is this true? Should I forget C++ and move on to another language after C? <comment><USER2> C is a small, beautiful, elegant language that's fine tuned to systems programming and high-performance programming, with a surprising ability to be used on higher levels with enough skill. As a programmer and computer scientist, C will teach you a good abstract model of how a program is executed on the low level (memory management, stack, heap, and so forth), especially if you learn some assembly along with it, and learn how to make C and assembly work together. It is not the best applications language and there are proportionally fewer opportunities to write and read C code than there once was, but it's necessary if you want to be a great programmer.

C++ is a big, clunky, difficult, ugly language. Understanding C++ is an accomplishment, but not because it involves any fundamental learning beyond the peculiarities of that language. As a programmer and computer scientist, C++ will teach you how to design a clunky mess of a programming language. But it is widely used, for good reasons. It's the right blend of performance and abstraction for many applications. It's a good language--maybe the best--for learning certain data structures, just because it combines pointers (data structures are mostly built out of pointers) with encapsulation (which helps reinforce the mental model that, for instance, rotation subroutines are part of what makes an AVL tree an AVL tree). And as an application language, it's very much usable. So it is worthwhile, but probably not a high a priority as C (or, indeed, other languages that can teach you more than simply how to use that particular language).

<comment><USER3> Calling C small, beautiful and elegant is quite a statement, considering what larger-than-academic projects end up looking like after having been macrofied to the point where only the person who wrote it can make sense of the code.

The bottom line is that they are both rather ugly but practical languages. C++ offers more abstraction means, but is more complex. But for larger projects, I'd rather have that then GLib style hacked up C.

<comment><USER2> That's vaguely what I meant when I said that C isn't a great applications language but C++ is a passable one. Different languages are well suited for different tasks, and if you use the wrong language for the task you'll always end up with a mess. So sometimes C++ is more suitable than C. And sometimes some other language entirely is more suitable. But the language design of C-- compared to C++--is a masterpiece of clean and simple design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It really depends on what do you want to do. If you are going to write stuffs on Windows OS for financial companies, you need to learn C++ to read existing codes.

If you want to build new system with Linux/BSDs. Then learning C is enough for you to do all useful things. Then you learn Java just as your friend says.

C++ is really complicated if you use features beyond basic templates and classes. And in reality, it lacks of standard Application Binary Interface for using binary libraries as C does. And different compilers may interpreter some spec in C++ differently.

C and Java is much simpler and uniform.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is the third or fourth post with the same question in the last month or so.

At the risk of being grumpy, I'd make a longer reply, but I already blogged on this just this morning.

[http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/05/tired-of- erla...](http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/05/tired-of-erlang.php)

So go with C++. It doesn't have as many letters as Java.

<comment><USER6> On the "grumpy" track: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=619739> (now get off my lawn.)

<comment><USER5> Dang kids!

I like pontificating as much as the next guy. But there's this pattern that keeps repeating: person asks question. People speculate on what they might have meant and offer answers. Person comes on and says no, that's not it at all. Then people spin off on _that_ piece of information and speculated on what the situation is. Repeat and rinse.

Should I study C++ or Java? Well gee, what's important to you? Picking up complex concepts? Learning to work in large shops? Becoming an all-round nerd? Without context -- and a lot of it, including your life situation and priorities -- it's just an invitation to bullshit. Even then there's plenty of room for disagreement. It's like asking, What kind of music should I learn to like?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In order to program productively in C++ without too many segfaults, you need a deep understanding of what's going on, why the wrong one of your three two- argument copy-constructors is being called, when the invisible initialization of superclass vtables takes place, which spurious error symptoms indicate delete[]d non-arrays and so on. It takes quite some time to learn all this. Other languages like Java will also require a mental model of the execution environment, but in most languages that model is smaller and misunderstandings are easier to find.

In short: learn C++ if you expect to program in C++, but prepare to spend a lot of time before you get the good "I'm sitting on top of a seven-wheel motorcycle at 200mph, wheeee!" feeling C++ can give you.

</comment><comment><USER8> As far as your buddy goes it sounds like he isn't vary familiar with C++ or familiar with it in a environment in which it was poorly used. If anything C++ is much simpler to use than C on anything that is nontrivial.

Anyway whichever way you go know that idiomatic C and C++ are very different(see <http://www.research.att.com/~bs/new_learning.pdf> for an idea of the differences). If while learning C++ you notice that it looks like C know that your source of info is doing it wrong. In fact I find idiomatic C++ to be much less error prone than idiomatic Java.

</comment><comment><USER9> _Is this true? Should I forget C++ and move on to another language after C?_

Why do you need to move on to anything else? As your friend said... "C is more than enough".

<comment><USER10> C is more than enough to getting work done, but you need to look beyond to expand your mind and play with higher-levels of computing than pointer manipulation and bit flipping.

<comment><USER9> I haven't thought about pointer manipulation or bit flipping for years. Once you know a language you stop thinking about the grammar.

<comment><USER10> It's not the grammar that's in your face, ime, it's the minimal semantics. In C I'm more conscious of low-level details that I don't need to think about: planning where to put things, stack, heap, static area or even, gasp, registers is not a good way to implement higher level data structures and algorithms.

I prefer to focus on lists, graphs, queues, objects, events, continuations/control-semantics, and communication messages. I prefer to code in a high-level languages that allows me to get lower and lower as my needs for performance arise, and C is not it; in C I would need to build up my language to the higher semantic level my applications usually require, before I can even see it work. It puts the performance cart before the usefulness horse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, Java has his problems too. I'd suggest learning C and then switching to a real object language (for instance io - <http://www.iolanguage.com/> )

Do you want to learn those languages for your career or just for yourself ?

</comment><comment><USER12> There are things you can do with C++ that you simply cannot with java. I would recommend learning enough java to pick up OOP concepts, and maybe even some design patterns. Getting to that point should take no more than 6 months (if you work with it daily).

</comment><comment><USER13> It depends on what your goal is.

If you want a well paid job in business area, then C# and/or Java.

If you want to broaden your CS knowledge, then Lisp, Smalltalk, Eiffel.

If you want to work on shrink-wrap software then C++.

It's worth pointing out that Bjarne Stroustrup, creator of C++, is critical of it.

</comment><comment><USER14> It depends on what you want to do. If you want to work on the linux kernel, you need to know C. If you want to work on Ableton Live, you need to know C++. If you want to work at Wells Fargo you need to know Java.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't forget C++. Even if you stick to other languages you would probably still want to be able to read C++. There a _tons_ of great stuff written in C++ out there already.

</comment><comment><USER16> your buddy sounds misinformed.

however, your best course of action depends on what you're trying to accomplish. he may have produced a good suggestion despite the reasoning being flawed or based on bad information.

</comment><comment><USER17> IMHO, yes!

</comment><comment><USER18> C and C++ are two languages that share a base syntax. They are used in different problem domains. To randomly pick one for you to learn now is not a question we can answer. Your friend's reasoning isn't sound.

<comment><USER19> I have to agree with this, C++ isn't error ridden, maybe you friend has run in to some bad C++ code. (If this is true, for example Adobe Products should be failing miserably, their mostly C++).

I would say learn both, once you learn one it's not far off the learn the other. Knowing straight C ways including manual memory management, and learning C++ along with STL/Boost is a powerful combination.

C has a huge number of libraries already out there to do everything and anything. C++ has STL/boost which makes life very easy by giving your a lot of high level algorithms at your fingertips. Now wrap your C libraries in classes and use them in mix with STL/Boost. Now that's a powerful combination, best of both worlds.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I am Burnt - <AUTHOR>

I am working on my second startup and totally burned, cannot take anything any more , my personal life is in doldrums because of this. Invested every penny in my startup and it is not generating any revenue, more than that, I am burned and do not feel like doing anything in my life . If any entrepreneur out there been through the same situation , can help me get my passion of work and think positively? I feel like I am fit for nothing ;(. <comment><USER2> 'Embrace the Suck' is a great concept to re-frame your current situation. The mental game aspect requires persistent training and practice. Recommend reading Mark Devine's book, The Way of the SEAL. Here's a podcast interview> [http://www.thenewmanpodcast.com/2014/02/tnm-151-mark- divine-...](http://www.thenewmanpodcast.com/2014/02/tnm-151-mark-divine-way- of-the-seal/)</comment>


How to Be Happy - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/4su/how_to_be_happy/ <comment><USER3> At the time in my life when I stopped reading LessWrong I became remarkably happier within a week. I attribute this to two reasons: 1. LessWrong's focus on optimizing your life is so great that whenever I failed at something or didn't uphold something I said I would do I felt bad about it. 2. One thing that makes me happy (and I think most others would agree they're happiest when this occurs as well) is accomplishment. I like the feeling of working on a goal and having that lead to tangible results, whether that means something I've created or something like lifting more weight in the gym.

By actually making a change to how I act and seeing the results of that change in the world I developed a lot of confidence (I was formerly very shy and uncomfortable with myself despite having a lot of things going for me).

I want to come back to the first point briefly as well. At the time I was reading LW it often felt like I was being productive. I'd think to myself "oh I just need to read this article on motivation and acrasia (the LW term for procrastination), and I'll never fail to do what I planned to do again. This caused me to spend my time _preparing_ to do things that I never ended up doing, and it also set me up to feel angry with myself when I _inevitably_ failed.

One thing that helped me a lot was accepting that on top of everything we humans have going for us we're really just animals, and we get upset, or jealous, or sad, or angry, just like any other animal. So rather than try to eliminate these negative emotions from my life I came to accept them as normal and try to structure my life so that they occur as infrequently as possible. I've found a few ways of doing this that work for me, and I can post some of what's worked if anyone's interested. I still have bad days or bad moments, but when I do I accept it as normal and try to see what I can learn from it to lessen the impact next time, rather than trying to over-optimize the life of an unpredictable, fallible human making most of the important decisions in his life based on emotion (hint: that's all of us).

The allure of LW is that we're perfectly rational or that we can at least make ourselves that we through sheer force of will. For better or for worse (I think for better) that's not the case.

<comment><USER4> I think another key factor with a lot of modern unhappiness is that, as the article notes, money does not correlate to happiness as long as you are above the poverty line.

We have lost the art of teaching people how to have a philosophy of life. We teach people how to have a craft. We teach basic morals. In religious households you may even be taught a pretty comprehensive "life philosophy", but it is often underpinned by many practices that defy rationality, and I think, lead many to unhappiness.

A few years ago I stumbled on some pretty interesting reading about Stoicism and I have since read much of ancient greek philosophy and a bit of more modern stuff like Kant. It still sort of blows my mind just how insightful the ancient greek philosophers were about human nature. One of the key principles of Stoicism that has an analogue or similar set of features in many other philosophies is that it is essentially not things that happen to us that cause us pain/grief/sadness/unhappiness but our judgement and reaction to those things. It seems a little trite in a short post like this, and I can't sum up something as complex as an entire school of philosophical thought, but it has worked well for me.

I have been in conversations where life philosophies like Stoicism and other related ancient greek philosophies get dismissed out of hand. Only to have a conversation wind over our current empirical approach to happiness. This less wrong article is /exactly/ what I call this empirical approach to happiness. Study all of the correlates, take all the best modern science about which behaviors yield the most happiness and which yield the least happiness and optimize accordingly.

Yet, 1800+ years ago, ancient philosophers identified many of the same principles articles like this are encouraging us to apply to our lives. What is missing from this article, and I think that can often cause many people to fail at sticking with a plan, is a coherent and binding strategy for all of this disparate "strategies for happiness". The ancient philosophies are not perfect, us moderns have learned a thing or two since Socrates and Epictetus, but their insights on the human condition are too keen to ignore. We know a lot more about genetics, and I have witnessed the ravages of deep nearly incurable depression on my family. Even the ancient stoics knew of depression and how it could destroy rationality of the most adept philosophers. Outside of these parameters, I would argue, strongly, that we could all live with a little more Socrates and Epictetus in our life and a little less religious extremism and modern consumerism.

And this brings me to my main point, without a rational, modern, and scientifically palatable life philosophy for how to think and feel about /everything/ it is very easy to put yourself into negative emotional states. I have found with a system to judge and evaluate emotions, and a keen understanding of the basic tendencies of my nature, I don't need a lot of empirical scientific knowledge to stay happy, though it does inform my approach.

When I read your post it made me think of myself and my old strategy of decreasing pain/bad moments and increasing good moments where good feelings are more likely. Now, I proceed in a manner as I see fit and I simply accept that much of my feelings are up to me and that jealously, sadness, and anger are just my judgement or feelings about something. I have also, often found, that when properly analyzed, I am not truly sad about a situation, merely that my judgements were wrong. I have definitely embraced many stoic principles into my life, and when I continue to work at maintaining and improving my understanding and ability to apply the principles I have adopted, I stay very even keeled, neither greatly happy or greatly sad. Content. I try to stick close to my baseline and take joy in every day life (since most of life is every day life) :)

<comment><USER5> Thank you for writing this. Can you say more about the system you found, this binding strategy for "strategies for happiness"?

My judgements being wrong used to be a source of frustration for me too. Now I take them as a given. Being wrong is part of the process.

The biggest problem I have now is forgetting what strategy I had decided to follow. Mostly because there are too many things to decice. The process of me deciding doesn't ingrain each decision in me hard enough.

How do you deal with that?

<comment><USER4> Here is the thing. Stoicism as it was taught 2000 years ago was extremely bound up in its "providential" and deity focus. Not as unpalatable as some of the more direct monotheistic religions, but depending on your teacher stoicism was still on a scale of pantheism to direct theism. (Marcus was very pantheistic and deemphasized religion, Epictetus was much more vocal about the theistic elements). As a modern reader a lot of ancient philosophy is like that. It has elements that you have to excise. So ancient philosophies are not really plug in play for a modern rationalist.

Basically, I think you have to start by writing things down and learning about the elements of these ancient, and modern, philosophies to see the sort of systems they put in place to deal with every day life events and exceptional events. How should I think about X? And some very obvious patterns will emerge. Some elements of stoicism may be difficult to employ and Stoicism in general is a hard to follow (fully) philosophy. The key point Epictetus had was that very few of us have the ability to follow Stoicism (or any coherent, but challenging) philosophy to its fullest. However, we should still endeavor down this path of "progress". This is why Epictetus has stayed so popular. He didn't advocate perfection of philosophy, merely that you work at it.

Which brings me to my final thought for you to answer your question directly: write it all down. For example, Stoicism has a lot of great elements that resemble modern psychology CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). So you pull the elements of ancient philosophies that work, you augment it with snippets like this Less Wrong articles various things. And you write your own coherent philosophy of life. And then you work at following it. It is pretty easy to lay down ideals, and pretty hard to stick to them. So you have to work at it, almost every day. You have to work on mindfulness and staying present and ensuring you keep your philosophy in mind in every day situations and exceptional situations. And, and this is where it gets tricky if you have trouble with non-empirical elements, you just have to believe your philosophy works. You have to believe it enough to follow it, even if you can't explain all of it. Science has spent the last 2000+ years catching up to things the ancient greeks found to work.

Much like a running coach can't really tell you WHY, exactly, everything he is having you do is working, it just does. Physiology has slowly been providing more and more detail, in the mean time running coaches have learned through trial and error how to train very efficiently. Some day we will probably have an exact explanation for the mechanisms of physiological improvement. Until then we can use our very good heuristics. I would argue it is the same from psychological perspective. It is close enough. Trust in your system and intuition and work to make it better and progress as a human being. There is no "perfect system" for everyone, but I think we could all agree on some pretty broad ideals that count as forward progress as humans :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've read many articles and books on this subject and not a single one of them had any effect on my life. It's usually just a list of things that - <USER2> to the author (and every author of course has different opinion) - will make you happy. It's bullshit, there is no "golden solution" for everyone. Reading such articles will make you even more unhappy, because now you've the whole list of things and you feel like if you don't achieve them all, you'll be unhappy for the rest of your life.

<comment><USER7> Maybe the closest writing to fit your view is Daniel Gilbert[1]. Basically, humans have a biological "set point" for happiness and it's different for everyone. It is not affected by winning the lottery, or getting paralyzed from a car accident, or doing meta-analysis on what happiness is (such as reading self-help books about achieving happiness.) Those events may affect happiness in the short term but not in the long term. People will eventually gravitate back to their predisposed set point of happiness.

If I agree with the above, I can set aside the quest for ultimate measurement of _absolute_ happiness (e.g. Solon's " _Count no man happy until he be dead._ "[2]) . However, I can still do things that affect _relative_ happiness. When I stopped consulting for boring ERP software, my quality-of-life definitely improved. Again, I won't know if I'm ultimately "happy" until I'm lying on my deathbed. Nevertheless, it feels like I got a little victory from changes like that.

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Happiness-Daniel- Gilbert/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Happiness-Daniel- Gilbert/dp/1400077427)

[http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy)

[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon)

<comment><USER6> I agree you can do things that affect your relative happiness, but the key here is that it's YOU who must know what the things are - everyone have different needs and you can't fit all in one model. Some prefer to have interesting, but lower paying job, some doesn't care as long as it pays for their hobbies - and both can be happy, but switch their lives and both will be miserable. So if one would give advice to the other on how to be happy, it wouldn't help a bit, because they've different perspective on life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can someone tell me how this 'cult of happiness' started in western culture. The obsession with happiness is so pervasive and absurd that people are depressed because they are not happy 24x7 not because of a personal tragedy. Why is some vaguely defined happiness sold as some holy grail that must be achieved at all costs.

There are billion dollar industries built around selling happiness ( fashion industry, fitness industry, education industry and a million others), and yet, and yet most of happiness we are sold is a distant dream for the most of us. Why? . Why do we live in a constant conflict both within ourselves and conflict with the outer world. Do you want to live your life in this constant conflict ?

Most happiness peddling misses the important intricate relationship between happiness and pain/anxiety how they are the same feeling and pursuing one means pursuing the other. And yet most people are fooled into believing that we can somehow chase happiness while avoiding pain/anxiety. Even people who are very logical in every other parts of life buy into this absurdity.

Does this have to do anything with rise of western industrial power when marketing changed from 'buy this because you need it' to 'buy this because it will make you happy' [1]

1\. [http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the- self/](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/)

<comment><USER9> In the article, the writer mentioned he is rarely unhappy for more than 20 minutes. I don't understand this. Happiness is a result of something that is good and sadness is a result of something being bad. Emotions have a purpose. Emotions are not some sort of primitive remnant from prehistoric times we need to overcome. It's as if because of science we can now see what is good and what is bad and remove the bad emotions like they had no reason or purpose.

<comment><USER10> Emotions have a purpose, but that doesn't mean you need to wallow in your unhappiness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm happiest when I'm seeking out and feeding off all sorts of misery, schadenfreude of others' failures, absurdity, ennui, existential guilt, jealousy of others' success, fear of missing of out, fear of growing old, sexual frustration, impotence of metaphorical and of the limpy kind, the haze and alcohol/drug induced dependency, anxiety of status.

I get angry and anxious reading my Facebook updates about weekend adventures that I wasn't part of, LinkedIn updates about undeserving acquaintances climbing the ladder higher than where I'm. I proceed to then practice mindful meditation to be fully conscious of my human nature to practice the dual art of sour grapes (e.g., "Going to law school given all of the articles I read is not worth it nowadays") and rationalization (e.g., "They may be richer, but I'm happier... as a maker."). Then I realize what a worthless person I'm but self-worthless transforms into the joy of masochism.

I overeat, overdrink, stay up late, sleep in, skip out of work, act out, make inappropriate propositions to friends or strangers when inebriated. Nursing the bad hangover the morning after, I pat myself in the back for getting free therapy sessions from unwilling acquaintances and for my courage to let myself go to practice authenticity.

<comment><USER12> I am not a psychiatrist, but you may be suffering from some form of mental illness. Please consider talking to a mental wellness professional about how you feel emotions. Nobody is going to try and make you change who you are, but almost anyone would benefit from understanding how their own mind works better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13>
      8. Find your purpose and live it. One benefit of religion may be that it gives people a sense of meaning and purpose. Without a magical deity to give you purpose, though, you'll have to find out for yourself what drives you. It may take a while to find it though, and you may have to dip your hands and mind into many fields. But once you find a path that strongly motivates you and fulfills you, take it. (Of course, you might not find one purpose but many.) Having a strong sense of meaning and purpose has a wide range of positive effects.41 The 'find a purpose' recommendation also offers an illustration of how methods may differ in importance for people. 'Find a purpose' is not always emphasized in happiness literature, but for my own brain chemistry I suspect that finding motivating purposes has made more difference in my life than anything else on this list.

I think that's the biggest factor of my happiness. I have a long-term open source project that I believe in and I work on it in all my spare time. Little by little, it's getting closer to one day being very useful in many ways.

<comment><USER14> That's exciting, very happy for you. Can you share more about this?

<comment><USER13> Thanks. :)

It's an experimental software development tool, largely inspired by Bret Victor's talks. It's similar to projects like Light Table, Zed editor, but it's nowhere near as complete and focuses on a single programming language (Go).

I worked on it full time for a year after finishing my master's degree, culminating in a first place winning demo submission to the LIVE 2013 contest [1].

By then, I ran out of money so I got a full time job and continue to work on Conception in my limited free time. By now, I'm working on a pure Go implementation of Conception [2], which is a lot more advanced in some ways, but is still needs a lot more work before it's actually usable and helpful to other people. Someday, when the time is right, I want to get back into it full time, because it really requires a lot of work.

[1] [http://liveprogramming.github.io/liveblog/2013/04/live- progr...](http://liveprogramming.github.io/liveblog/2013/04/live-programming- contest-winners/)

[2] [https://github.com/shurcooL/Conception- go/commits/master](https://github.com/shurcooL/Conception-go/commits/master)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was a lot happier when I stopped reading LessWrong. I'm not even trying to be (overly) snarky - I really did used to read LW and I'm very glad I stopped as it was one of the many small things dragging down my well being.

<comment><USER9> Would you care to elaborate on this? I have my own criticisms of LW and without mentioning what they are, I want to see if other people's match up with mine.

<comment><USER16> I see LW as part of the cult of reason - under risk of strawmanning, it's the idea that pretty much everything subject to perfect logical deduction from first principles.

It's important to study and understand human biases and it can be helpful in overcoming many struggles since most of the time, you're your own worst enemy, but the philosophy that you're inherently flawed and you should put up a constant effort to be "less wrong" is a recipe for disaster IMO.

Absolutely, take time every now and then to reflect on life and whether any biases and assumptions about the world is impairing your wellbeing and happiness and whether it might be worth changing that -- but in everyday life, listen to your impulses, intuition and feelings. Don't be blind, don't be stupid, but also don't constantly second-guess yourself.

I should totally write a self help book. Or at least make some inspirational Facebook cover photos.

<comment><USER17> > but in everyday life, listen to your impulses, intuition and feelings

The idea, if I understand it correctly, is that those are the things that are supposed to end up "less wrong." You're not supposed to be consciously thinking all the time about how your thinking is broken; you're supposed to practice a few tricks for a while, internalize them, and then your impulses/intuition/feelings will _be_ (less) broken.

<comment><USER16> I think that's right, and it's probably even pretty compatible with what I suggest.

What I think is dangerous is adopting the underlying philosophy that your intuition is inherently wrong and in need of salvation from reason.

In this, as with every other area of human improvement, there's a balance to be struck between recognising your current state as "good enough" (even that has a derogatory ring to it) while not isolating you from the fact that there's almost always almost infinite room for improvement. And I think the cult of reason and LW in particular is bad at recognising and respecting a "good enough" state.

Or put another way, imagine if the most popular software engineering website was "YoureNotAsGoodAsJohnCarmack.com".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "The only correct view is the absence of all views." \- thich nhat hanh

We are unhappy when we assign reasons to people's actions or words. When we think that others say or do things because they are "out to get me". That is a view and that is an incorrect view that will lead to all sorts of unhappiness and discontent in your life. Get rid of all of your views. Some things just happen. There is no grand plan.

"Do you want to be right, or happy?" \- thich nhat hanh

Don't correct people or argue with them. It leads to unhappiness. Especially don't do this in front of others. It will only cause confrontation that hurts you just as much as the people you are correcting. Even if you are being wrongly accused, just be silent. There will be a better time later to correct the situation and set the record straight. This is much needed in corporations in America that have contentious meetings. People interrupt each other, openly demean and correct each other. Sit silently in these meetings and stay above it all. Everyone will notice and you'll be much happier and content.

There is much more we can learn from Eastern philosophy. When things cause stress and unhappiness in your life, examine them, be mindful of your words and deeds toward others, live only in the present and you'll forever be happy.

<comment><USER19> >>"The only correct view is the absence of all views." \- thich nhat hanh

That is a pretty strong view! ;D

>>live only in the present and you'll forever be happy

Live only in the present and you will be happy, sad, angry, in love, sleepy, hungry etc, etc. Happiness is just a thing that happens, like all things. All things happen in the present. Can you experience a "past event" in the present?

<comment><USER20> Things I would qualify as "experiencing a 'past event' in the present" (which breed unhappiness) include regret, remorse, PTSD, etc. E.g. emotions like regret are always experienced in the present, but that emotion may _be about_ about past event.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _Extroversion is among the best predictors of happiness,_

Well of course it is! No one ever meets the shy happy people because they never go out!

<comment><USER22> There is also, as the author mentions, a correlation between religiosity and happiness. Still, "start going to church" is not on the list of things to do. I'll hazard a guess that the author is not religious and thus doesn't consider it relevant. While I don't personally believe this a worthy pursuit, it does show the arbitrariness of the selection.

EDIT: Point 8 does touch on religion but does not (directly) endorse it.

<comment><USER23> This is on Less Wrong, a website devoted to rationality. You'll notice several times in the article he is clearly addressing a rationality-focused audience. For instance:

 _Without a magical deity to give you purpose, though, you 'll have to find out for yourself what drives you._

He's writing for atheists. Telling an atheist "in order to be happy you need to get religion" is like telling a recovering alcoholic "in order to fall asleep you need to have a few drinks."

<comment><USER24> That's one of the entire problems with atheism: without a higher power to give your life purpose, it can be very difficult to suffer through yet another day on this earth full of such suffering and sorrow.

Nihilism has a similar issue.

It's icky.

<comment><USER25> And it is better to worship a deity that at the very least created "this earth full of such suffering and sorrow" if it isn't actively controlling it depending on your view of the deity's role in the world?

As for purpose it isn't that hard to have one; it can be as simple as to having a little happiness and trying to make the world around you just a tiny bit better rather than worse.

There is also no reason why for most people days should be things in general to "suffer through".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I hardly agree with "Develop the skills and habits associated with extroversion". Why I need to be comfortable with social company if my predisposed nature and comfortableness is to be alone ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because you have a lot to gain by doing so. Humans are capable of deriving a lot of happiness from social matters, so there's a large opportunity cost to being alone.

That said, it obviously depends on the person's situation. I don't think the advice is good for everyone. But it's probably good for most.

Edit: I found [http://www.succeedsocially.com/allarticles](http://www.succeedsocially.com/allarticles) to be really insightful and useful.

<comment><USER27> There is also quite a difference between not choosing to socialize, vs. feeling depressed because you are not able to socialize successfully.

<comment><USER28> not choosing to socialize may seem like a fine choice and not a source of depression in itself. But I think what the parent tried to say is that there is opportunity cost associated with such a decision. I need good amounts of solitude each week, which makes me an introvert i guess, but if there are no good interactions with other humans at all, my happiness dips noticeably. Having an option to meet with another human (and having a good interaction every so often) is a boost to the feeling of security, which I believe can help the feeling of happiness. For example If i do something awesome (or really dumb), I need to tell someone, and it needs to be someone that actually cares. Or the experience is not as good / might as well not have happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Happiness is subjective and relative"

True story: When I was a kid, I was very happy with the rattling performance of my old Schneider PC. The sun was shining bright that day during the lunch break on the schoolyard, when a notoriously rich kid approached me with a grin on his face: "So you have a PC at home, huh? Want to see a real one?". A couple hours later we walked to his mansion. I took a seat in front of his PC. It looked new, and great. The monitor was very large. Very impressive. And then he turned it on. "It's a Pentium!". And he went on bragging about it. When I came back home and turned my PC on to continue working on my website, I was more aware than ever that my PC was slow. I knew it sucked, and from that moment on it depressed me. A couple years later I got a fast Dell. I was happy for a while. Until I got used to it.

Morale: Sometimes, not knowing what can make you happy means you stay happy.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've reduced it to a series of equations:

      Happiness = Perceived Actual Life / Expected Life  --- (1)

where,

      Perceived Actual Life = Perception * Actual Life ----- (2)

and in most cases,

      Expected Life ∝ Perceived Life of Others </comment><comment></comment><comment>- (3)

where,

      Perceived Life of Others = Perception * Others' Actual Life -- (4)

and finally,

      Actual Life ∝	(1 / Happiness) * Skill * Circumstance - (5)

The most success I had was in breaking equation (3), and then in upward adjusting _Perception_ in (2). But (5) is the kicker -- it implies that your lack of happiness feeds back into other people's lack of happiness, creating a loop. As long as it holds, everyone will try to one-up each other in trying to improve their lives.

EDIT: corrected error in (1)

<comment><USER31> Hmm, equation 5 bugs me. I like the model that being less happy can drag down other people, but this directly implies that being more happy drags your own life down, which I feel is antithetical to the definition of happiness.

I think this stuff is really cool though, and I really like where you're going!

Do you have proposed units for the quantities in your equations?

<comment><USER32> I think it's easier to see the relations once you substitute everything in. I combined the perception terms instead of cancelling since presumably they're different, but here you go:

      Happiness = Perception * (1 / Happiness) * Skill * Circumstance / Others' Actual Life
      Happiness^2 = Perception * Skill * Circumstance / Others' Actual Life
      Happiness = +-sqrt(Perception * Skill * Circumstance / Others' Actual Life)

I'm not certain about the negative root there; maybe that's depression? Otherwise, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Square_root_0_25.svg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Square_root_0_25.svg), it seems reasonable; improving one of perception/skill/circumstance if it's near-zero will improve your happiness drastically, but it's a relatively slow- growing function so improving happiness after that has diminishing returns.

Also, as you mention we never defined the terms. I believe all of these are generally measured on self-administered surveys with "rate X" scales, and so are just percentages with no units.

Finally, the terms don't have any obvious correlations with the post, so I just stuck in the things that were mentioned that seemed relevant:

* Happiness - see eqn., you can't affect this directly

* Skill - conscientiousness, self-esteem, optimism, feelings of purpose and fulfillment

* Others' Actual Life - income and wealth

* Circumstance - genes (health?), extroversion, "flow"

* Perception - paying attention to your situation/actions/feelings and in particular adjusting your estimates of success/failure chance to match reality (humans deal very badly with probabilities) - includes "agreeableness" (understanding of others), "memory" (perceptions of self being happy), and "mindfulness" (perceptions of world)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> My dog is probably one of the happiest creatures I know. But he can't get his own dinner and I have to take him out to poop.

If everyone was happy all the time we would probably still live in caves because there wouldn't have been the struggle that brings us to where we are.

This in my opinion may be why religion correlates with happiness. For the very same reason lobotomized people might be happy. Do you want to be happy or do you want to know how the world really works and what is certainly going to happen?

But... the dark cynicism of reality aside, I think happiness probably results very simply from good health, physical activity, strong social connections and a feeling of being important or succeeding. It's good to be happy sometimes. But I still think being happy all the time might not be the best thing for us personally, nor for us as a species. IMHOP.

<comment><USER34> Cynicism is not the driving force of innovation, optimism is.

It is possible to be happy and rational.

<comment><USER33> I don't disagree with either statement.

But if there isn't a problem in the first place there can't be a solution. And if you don't see the problem because you are busy "being positive" then you can't work on it.

I look at it like this... motion comes from polarity. Yin and Yang. Male and Female. Happiness and Misery. Just my opinion.

And yes... I find the cult of constant happiness a bit annoying and superficial. I do think it is good for people to be happy __most of the time... I'm happy most of the time, but I'm not happy all the time and neither is anyone else. Nor should they be unless they are mental patients or animals. That's my point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > 1\. If you suffer from serious illness, depression, anxiety, paranoia, > schizophrenia, or other serious problems, seek professional help first. > Here's how.

Link is broken. :-(

Also nowhere in the list of happiness suggestions are volunteering and helping others to be found. Says to practice gratitude by appreciating all the good things you have, but never to actually help those less fortunate than you.

The message is happiness is easy, as long as you aren't living below the poverty line or dealing with major problems in your life. Well plenty of people are dealing with both and could really use your help. Helping others might fulfill the gratitude and 'meaningful job' portions of this vanity list too.

</comment><comment><USER36> Here is a more actionable list:

[http://blog.bufferapp.com/10-scientifically-proven-ways- to-m...](http://blog.bufferapp.com/10-scientifically-proven-ways-to-make- yourself-happier)

</comment><comment><USER37> I actually found the Be Happier [0] article to be a better source of actionable and researched-backed advice. I put a bunch of the In A Nutshell sentences into my general Anki [1] deck, and it's had a measurable effect on my overall happiness.

[0]: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/bq0/be_happier/)

[1]: [http://ankisrs.net/](http://ankisrs.net/)

<comment><USER38> Re: the anki deck, what you do put on the front of the card vs. the back of the card?

<comment><USER37> I know it's not recommended, but I made a single page Note Type, and just put them on there:

<b>Be Happier</b><div> </div>Interpersonal: Give the people around you opportunities to be generous. Ask them for favors.

When it comes up, I quietly read it out loud to myself. I've found that seeing these cards often enough keeps their concepts on my mind, so when I go out with friends and someone offers to buy me a beer, I accept it and thank them, instead of refusing even to the point of awkwardness (as is my natural inclination).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The author mostly described the ancient philosophy of Stoicism. See "A Guide To The Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy"

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/02/what-is- stoicism-a...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/02/what-is-stoicism-and- how-can-it-turn-your-life-to-solid-gold/)

</comment><comment><USER40> I recommend giving The Conquest of Happiness by Bertrand Russell (yes, he wrote what amounts to a self-help book) a read. Despite being outdated by a long while, it's still pretty relevant and useful imo.

[https://archive.org/details/TheConquestOfHappiness](https://archive.org/details/TheConquestOfHappiness)

<comment><USER41> I tried reading that and found it fairly bad. Even the opening sentence "Animals are happy so long as they have health and enough to eat" is bollocks. I rather liked the "Happiness Hypothesis" by Haidt although it's more of an academic look at the area than a self help book. Also "Philosophy for Life: And other dangerous situations" is good on the philosophical side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> As someone was currently suffering of depression, this is going to help me. Nice article and linked resources.

<comment><USER43> Interesting use of varying tenses in your grammar. Is English your first language?

<comment><USER42> No, it's spanish. Just spotted one mistake, would you care to correct what I wrote? BTW, there's no way to edit my comment here on HN right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Great article. I think that the main point is always being busy doing what you like, namely, in the "flow" the author describes.

<comment><USER34> Flow has high highs but it doesn't produce a lasting contentedness that the author is talking about

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I tried actively increasing my happiness by reading up the on self help / academic stuff with moderate success. I probably managed to go from well below average (based on some Seligman tests) to a bit above. I kind of had a goal to get to the top 10% which I don't think I've really hit but onwards anyway...

</comment><comment><USER22> Most self-help advice boils down to the author saying "be more like me." This is no exception.

<comment><USER45> Your point? That's true of most advice in general. It's common sense that if something worked for one person, then perhaps it could work for another.

<comment><USER46> The difference is that this person actually backs his advice with some studies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think more or less everything boils down to this:

1\. Good health: when you are sick, nothing else matters

2\. Money: it solves almost any solvable problem, and in case it doesn't, it helps

3\. Family/Friends/Relationships/Love/Intimacy

</comment><comment><USER48> I felt happy when I decided not to read the article :)

<comment><USER49> I felt happy when I downvoted your casual dismissal :)

[Edit: that's not true, I felt happy before I downvoted, when I imagined downvoting.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> My problem may be laziness. I couldn't bring myself to read more than half of such a long article, so I guess I'll just stay moderately unhappy.

<comment><USER43> The bit about procrastination was in the first half of the article :)

<comment><USER50> Who said I read the first half?

<comment><USER50> (LPT: Always jump straight to the conclusions part of the article. Then, maybe, read the parts that may interest you. The Internet is an infinite sea of data; If you stop swimming or dive too deep, you'll drown on it.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Pretty sure the last thing the world needs is Less Wrong cross-pollinating with Hacker News.

<comment> barry-cotter Really? Why? What exactly is wrong with lesswrong? Please be specific.

<comment><USER52> From this thread [0], they are looked at as a sort of cult. Funnily enough, they look at HN the same way.

[0] -[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053606](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8053606)

<comment><USER53> > _Funnily enough, they look at HN the same way._

[citation needed]. This would be somewhat... surprising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> To be happy

1\. Be like Water. Keep your mind like Water. Stateless. Formless. Keep flowing like water. Don't settle & Stop.

[http://soopara.com/being-water-be-water-my-friend-be- water-b...](http://soopara.com/being-water-be-water-my-friend-be-water-be- water/)

2\. Fall in love with yourself more than anyone else.

Fall in love with your Passion, it already knows everything about you.

3\. Try to Know Everything about your Previous life(life's).

Thus, know the purpose of your life & connect those dots. Get closer to your niche & Life purpose.

4\. Surround yourself with Right people.

5\. Be in a place(Create that place) for yourself, where you got more freedom & autonomy to think and live.

6\. Finally to be happy, be happy, create Good, great & positive thoughts always.

What we think, we become. Its that simple!

Our thoughts = Key Life Formula.

</comment><comment><USER55> Just for those of you who aren't aware, LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity." The site founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction, "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." His core beliefs include that the obvious goal of the human race is immortality, that it is justifiable to kill a man if it would remove a spec of dust from the eye of every other person on Earth, and that the most important thing we could possibly be doing right now is devoting all of our time developing a mathematical model of a "safe AI." The site frequently dallies with discredited ideas like Drexlerian nanobots and some on the site take absurd concepts like "Roko's Basilisk" [1] seriously.

All of this is not to discredit this specific article. And there are lots of very intelligent posters there. But I tend to take everything I read there with a massive grain of salt.

[1] [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk)

<comment><USER56> >LessWrong is a site devoted to the cult of the "singularity."

LessWrong is a discussion forum mostly pertaining to psychology, philosophy, cognitive biases, etc,. A frequent topic of discussion is artificial intelligence, but it is hardly centric. Saying that LessWrong is a hangout spot for "singularity cult members" (as you call them) is simply incorrect on multiple levels. Technological singularity is no more than a scientific hypothesis, and it's slightly dramatic to say it perhaps has cult members worshiping and breeding its realism. In actuality technological singularity just has scientists and researches observing/theorizing its stepping stones and outcomes. Maybe you meant transhumanists rather than "singularity cult members", which I suppose makes more since from your other statements.

>Eliezer Yudkowsky, is a secular humanist who is probably most well-known for his Harry Potter fanfiction

Yudkowsky is also a prominent researcher of a variety of artificial intelligence topics which is enhancing the field. Primarily he focuses not on developing a Strong AI (AGI), but rather focusing on safety issues that such a technology would pose.

>the most important thing we could possibly be doing right now is devoting all of our time developing a mathematical model of a "safe AI."

"friendly AI"* and I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say mathematical model, you should do more research it's mostly hypotheses and ideas for system transparency.

>But I tend to take everything I read there with a massive grain of salt.

Maybe you should visit LessWrong and read some articles about cognitive biases so you understand why someone saying "massive grain of salt" makes me want to kill innocent puppies.

<comment><USER57> > Primarily he focuses not on developing a Strong AI (AGI), but rather > focusing on safety issues that such a technology would pose.

That's absurd at worst, science fiction at best, akin to worrying about manned flight __safety __in the 1500 's.

<comment><USER58> Are you really trying to deny that google cars and other automated systems at least partially based on AI have safety issues? Even if we're talking autonomous, "life-like" AI, there is a long list of interesting philosophical and legal questions to be asked. I can't say I find any of the statements here or in the article very appealing, but you shouldn't dismiss real safety/security issues just because you don't like the guy.

<comment><USER59> Are you really trying to assert that MIRI is addressing systems on the level of Google cars, in any serious technical manner? If so, can you point to examples?

<comment><USER58> No, I'm saying that AI has wider applications, and I was responding to the manned flight safety example. Also, I'm arguing that we shouldn't dismiss the guy's arguments just because he's an ass. Especially with regards to this article, we really don't need to resort to a straw man to refute what he wrote.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


From Quitting Silicon Valley to Getting Our First Paid Customer - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/@arunaugustine/from-quitting-silicon-valley-to-failing-four-times-and-finally-getting-our-first-paid-customer-aeda7e0cb9 <comment><USER2> Just reminded me of someone's quote. Startup life is somewhat like leap of faiths on infinite recursion. Build.ship.pivot.repeat

</comment><comment><USER3> Happy to be a part of the journey</comment>


Show HN: Transform Your GitHub Issues into a Public Roadmap - <AUTHOR> https://roadmap.space/github-integration

<comment><AUTHOR> So this is my second product launch since I left my day job 7 months ago. It aims to let product-oriented companies keep their users informed of what they're working on and notify them when something new launches or an issue is fixed.

I'm not sure if most companies will want to share what they're working on or if they prefer it to remain secret, but I do think that it's important to be honest and transparent with your users (especially when they're paying you on a recurring basis). Trello seems to agree as they offered a similar feature recently allowing companies to open their boards to the public.

If you have some feedback on the concept or the app itself, I'd be more than glad to hear it!

<comment><USER2> First off, this is awesome.

With enough focus and effort you could really turn this into a stellar product that I would use daily.

I manage my most of development through GitHub. Unfortunately, the processes around getting user input and bug reports, communicating changes and updates back, etc. all suck. Usually, you have to marry a thousand-and-one services together and thereby die by a thousand cuts, or setup some customized process (manual, with automation eventually).

Having that all tie in/around GitHub would be such a time saver, and would reduce a lot of duplication of effort.

\---

For example, I want to:

1\. Setup a milestone.

2\. Create issues for features, bug fixes, and re-factoring that needs to happen.

3\. Communicate this to users.

4\. Tie in user feedback.

5\. Develop the product, providing releases on some schedule.

5\. Rinse and repeat until the milestone is reached.

6\. Release. That means tagging, running CI to generate for all target platforms (native, woo!), and getting a Github release put together.

7\. Communicating and delivering that to end users.

\---

I can achieve this with a hodgepodge solution, as I mentioned before, but one service would be killer.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Old tech talks/videos? (80s, 90s) - <AUTHOR> Is there any archive containing old tech talks e.g. from 80s, 90s? When Motif was popular and CORBA was a thing and OO was in its prime-time. <comment><USER2> The Computer History Museum has a youtube channel with a lot of material on it. While it's mostly _old_ material (oral histories from people who were movers and shakers in computer science in the 40s and 50s), it has a lot of re-uploads of technical talks from more recent conferences too. (For instance, they hosted some transfers of VHS recordings of Alan Kay lectures on OO at some mid-90s conference at Sun.)

</comment><comment><USER3> YouTube and archive.org

"Computer Chronicles"

<comment><AUTHOR> "Computer Chronicles" are more user-oriented, kinda marketing videos. I'm interested e.g. in C++ tech talks (from 90s).

<comment><USER3> They display and do deep dives into the technologies they are demonstrating. I'd say it's a good match.</comment></comment></comment>


In Response to Paul Graham's "Startup = Growth" - <AUTHOR> http://throwww.com/a/1oy

<comment><USER2> The blog post zeros right in on the purpose of the pg essay.

It is investor driven.

But the part about businesses building value is what is a little fuzzy? What is value, anyway?

If some "growth hackers", using the incedible and low cost reach of the web, manage to get a million people to "sign up" for some "thing" - never mind that you or someone else may think this "thing" is all but worthless - then this is a "business" that can be exploited. And that's what internet VC do.

Consumers define "value". If they are willing to pay in money or even just attention for absolute garbage, it is still "value". This appears to be true, at least it is true for investors, whether we like it or not.

<comment><USER3> > _But the part about businesses building value is what is a little fuzzy? > What is value, anyway?_

Apple giving affordable Apple IIs to american homes, or Ford, making cars available.

Not "getting a million people to sign up" as a "revenue to be exploited".

In that sense, customers DON'T define value, they just define profits.

He meant value the ethical and "make society better", way.

<comment><USER2> Value will vary from buyer to buyer.

Silly example: To junk collectors junk has value. But I think it's safe to say not everyone will agree with the junk collector.

Ethics really should not vary all that much from person to person. If it does then what's the point of even having a notion of ethics? The whole idea is to have some sort of common standard.

Value in this sense is nothing like ethics.

If we ask the junk collector if stealing is wrong, his answer should not vary much from the answer anyone else gives.

For some people, enriching investors using the most effective means possible (high growth; any legal business purpose is OK), seems to be well within the scope of "making society better".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Well, I think most refutations to PG's essay are based on an assumption: "Focusing on growth leads to being evil". It is probably due to too many negative stories in media about cheaters. But as we all know, cheaters can not sustain their own games forever due to the cheats violate some underlying fundamentals. So how about rephrasing the sentence as "Focus on growth while be nice to users and seek out real ways to optimize products to stand out among competitors and grow like wildfire"? Don't we all like good guys to win the game?

Also I don't see PG dismissed small businesses that are not startups in his essay. As long as a business is successful and profitable, any one can be a proud business owner of it. It is just not a company that will have huge growth potential and that's ok in a lot of case for the owner. And I really feel the confusion now is in mainstream business media to label any small business as "startup". IMHO, that is much more problematic and dangerous to anyone in business since that misconception gives small business owners disillusions about their potentials. PG now just says it out loud that, "Without huge growth it is not a startup that will change people's lives."

<comment><USER3> > _Well, I think most refutations to PG's essay are based on an assumption: > "Focusing on growth leads to being evil". It is probably due to too many > negative stories in media about cheaters. But as we all know, cheaters can > not sustain their own games forever due to the cheats violate some > underlying fundamentals._

The idea behind startups is that they don't have to "sustain their own games forever", just until they get bought...

<comment><USER4> But founders would never know when the startup will be bought, right? Probably it is better to hack ways out of the jungle and prepare to die in the way.

To be bought also requires luck and timing.</comment></comment></comment>


Pano Device (computerless computer - cloud base only) - <AUTHOR> http://www.core77.com/blog/object_culture/whipsaw-designed_pano_device_computerless_computer_is_smaller_greener_and_award-winning_17586.asp <comment><USER2> No details. Odd claims like "compared to a PC it consumes 3% of the energy, uses 4% of the material to make it, and is one hundred times smaller" but totally neglects to account for the server needed to power it.

I would love to have something like this at my house. I could imagine using it to power a few terminals... In my bedroom for some research or light reading, in my kitchen for recipes and internet searches, in my bathroom... There are many possibilities. However, it'd have to be completely under my control. I'd run the 'server', not some company in the cloud.</comment>


GitLab acquires Peach Tech and Fuzzit - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/press/releases/2020-06-11-gitlab-acquires-peach-tech-and-fuzzit-to-expand-devsecops-offering.html <comment><USER2> Also on [https://devops.com/gitlab-adds-fuzz-testing-to-devsecops- too...](https://devops.com/gitlab-adds-fuzz-testing-to-devsecops-toolbox/) and [https://siliconangle.com/2020/06/11/gitlab-acquires-peach- te...](https://siliconangle.com/2020/06/11/gitlab-acquires-peach-tech-fuzzit- beef-devops-security-testing-tools/)

We think that Fuzzing will grow in importance as security gets more focus in the software development process.

<comment><USER3> Anyone has any stats on the adoption of security scanning in general for devops projects? and fuzzing in particular?

<comment><USER4> @diminish - We have some stats related to security scanning which we cover in our security trends report ([https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/04/02/security-trends- in-...](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/04/02/security-trends-in-gitlab- hosted-projects/)). It is a very interesting read and would like to hear your feedback. We also did a survey of fuzzing usage the highlights are here ([https://about.gitlab.com/direction/secure/fuzz- testing/fuzz-...](https://about.gitlab.com/direction/secure/fuzz-testing/fuzz- testing/#user-pain-points-to-address)). We are excited about bringing Peach Tech and Fuzzit into GitLab as we are going to be able to address a big pain point for adoption of fuzzing (integration into CI).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Gitlab looks more and more like SAP these days. That's not necessarily a bad thing, enterprises out there choose all-in-one solutions because they need tech that covers the most ground with the easiest budget allocation, POC efforts from internal buyers and streamlined consulting at the post-sale effort. But once in, Gitlab, differently from SAP or Salesforce, is customized from around instead of from within. Meaning, it's not a platform for DevOps, just a bunch of moving parts that you need to tie together. This leads to very fragmented installations, with CI/CD running partially from within repos (gitlab.yml), containers, runner environments, scripts and other dangling cables.

I've seen more than one company build their own, horrid adhoc internal DevOps apps with extraneous UIs to help devs navigate different Gitlab CI/CD configurations. That's where Gitlab should be putting their efforts, in building a solid platform for dev and ops taking code to production instead of acquiring middle-of-the-road in-between tech like Peach Tech and Fuzzit, that add complexity to the core offering without checking many boxes for the clients seriously on the lookout for app/api testing.

Focus on the platform, enabling integrated customization and implementation robustness while orchestrating the outside moving parts and a great plugin ecosystem. Then get that certification program going strong. Right now your competitor Github "are belong to" Microsoft, and MS, better or worse, sure can do the platform thing for the many sizes of businesses where the meat of your revenue is truly coming from.

<comment><USER6> I'm a Gitlab fanboy, but you're right. We run a medium sized Gitlab instance and wanted to automate a bunch of tasks on it - like you should as a good adherent to DevOps principals.

But Gitlab is actively hostile to you building automations on top of it. Every access token is tied to a Gitlab User and every user is charged X$ a month, regardless of if it's a bot or not.

So the end result of this is a single bot user with poorly scoped permissions that can only be configured by an administrator. Great.

They are slowly moving forward with this epic[1] but the discussions around pricing are ridiculous. Don't you _want_ people to build automations around Gitlab, as it makes it more entrenched in your org. Stop making it harder by effectively charging hundreds of dollars a year per bot user.

Would love any comments you have on that @syste.

1\. [https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab- org/-/epics/3559](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/3559)

<comment><USER7> They're addressing the lack of service accounts, targeted for 13.1:

[https://gitlab.com/gitlab- org/gitlab/-/issues/6883](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/6883)

<comment><USER2> Yep, we want to charge only for people, not bots. Sorry it took a while to resolve this, it was complex.

<comment><USER6> I'm really glad you've reached this decision, but I'm still not happy with being asked "why are these automation tasks costing us $XXX" per year during our last recent license license update.

Until this epic is completed you are charging people full-seat price for automation users which, because of the poorly-scoped token permissions, require multiple "user" accounts to implement securely.

An automation utility in no way delivers the same value as a full time developer and it really shook me to know that this is how you have historically valued bots. It runs counter to everything that you publicise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's cool, but I wish they'd polish the base experience a little bit first. As well as stop this 'everything on kubernetes' thing. Right now I need kubernetes for at least half of all Gitlab functionality, and I have no doubt this latest acquisition will be the same thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I doubt any of the existing GitLab (sast, container scanning, dependency scanning / gemnasium, etc.) security scans need Kubernetes cluster integration.

They are normal containerized Jobs, for which all you need is GitLab Runner with Docker executors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Gitlab is making moves and proving it is a real player.

Glad to see the competition in the repository hosting space is strong. It's benefiting every developer.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have a genuine curiosity about GitLab as a business:

Are they actually growing much more in the mindset of developers since GitHub started doing some things right?

I have personally always wanted alternatives and GitLab* is a good one, but the reason I can not say they are a great one is because somehow* their story to me feels too much "against GitHub" than their own story.

GitHub made a lot of mess and eventually they undid some or just enough that they still retain the lion's share of public repos/projects. This matters a lot because community is great power, whoever holds it, holds key to future mindshare.

I want GitLab to be a larger part of the developers mindset everywhere, but I am not sure that is happening at the moment. Why not? If my assumptions are wrong, that is also acceptable to me, would like to see some signals.

* typo fixed

<comment><USER11> Tried locally hosted Gitlab once. It was so cumbersome to install I doubt I'd ever try again without containers or proven installers.

<comment><USER12> The Omnibus package is literally a one line install.

<comment><USER13> Historically their upgrades cause issues; I remember the time I upgraded our self-hosted installation and LDAP logins were broken, for example.

<comment><USER14> I've never seen anyone complain about the updates, in my own experience you can always update on day one without any issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> @syste

Are these soft landing acquisitions as described in your handbook? Also will the technology be open sourced like Gitter was?

<comment><USER2> Thanks for asking. We don't comment on individual acquisitions beyond what is in the OP. For everyone else there reference our handbook page about acquisitions is on [https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/acquisitions/](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/acquisitions/)

We won't necessarily open source all the acquired technology like we did with Gitter and RedHat does with every acquisition. We'll follow our buyer based open core model [https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/commercial-open- sourc...](https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/commercial-open-source- business-strategies/) Maybe the relevant product managers have more to say about the current plans.

<comment><USER4> @joiningnow123 - Thanks for the question. We plan to open source all the fuzzing engines built by Fuzzit. We also plan to open source Peach Tech's protocol fuzzer however this will be some time next year when we begin integrating it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This seems to be similar to GitHub adding automated code analysis and screening as well as detecting flaws in what would become the built artifacts like external APIs. In a sense they are delivering static analysis which used to cost a lot of money, time and dedicated manpower (i.e. HP Fortify).

It makes sense for those companies to expand beyond what they already have. Starting with version control systems, going on to Wikis, static websites, actions/automation, CI, artifact hosting. It will eventually contain the entire lifecycle it seems.

<comment><USER2> Lol!

<comment><USER2> Sorry, the lol was meant as a reply to ' One could argue that GitLab gets more and more mature but somehow still has Peach Fuzz.'

<comment><USER17> That's funnier than the joke itself as I was scratching my head to understand the joke in

> It makes sense for those companies to expand beyond what they already have. > Starting with version control systems, going on to Wikis, static websites, > actions/automation, CI, artifact hosting. It will eventually contain the > entire lifecycle it seems.

Because from what I understand wasn't this the goal from early on? :)

<comment><USER16> On one hand yes, on the other hand there is a difference in making better products vs. enriching the product by buying other products and integrating them. On the other hand, there is no single 'right way' of course, and adding knowledge, people and IP via acquisition is a functional way to do that.

But people will inevitably compare products and with GitLab vs. GitHub it's an obvious one to make. I do get the feeling that since Microsoft bought GitHub they are accelerating their feature releases to be more in line with GitLab's speed.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


We Got a Mention Now Let's Panic - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/business/03proto.htm

<comment><USER2> What I don't understand is why businesses like this feel guilty for not being able to turn up supply and distribution at the tip of a hat. Should you do the research, make the contacts, and be ready to handle it as much as possible? Sure. But, what is most important is that the ordering process can quickly be modified to indicate to the customer that demand is high and that their order may take much longer to fulfill than you'd like. Customers understand high demand and although they might be annoyed, it is much, much better than taking orders for things without the customer understanding how their order might be delayed.

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember hearing stories like this more than once!

Are companies notified before being placed in popular magazines such as O? This way they can strategize for the impending possible swarm of orders and don't regret their mistake of not 'being ready'.

If not, maybe they should be so the use of the 'snippet' is used to its full potential and readers can actually place an order with the company - its a win-win situation for small company and O. (Readers who fear that all these links are fails will not trust the magazine anymore)

Make sense?</comment>


Sprite Cow – Generate CSS for sprite sheets - <AUTHOR> http://www.spritecow.com/ <comment><USER2> I get very tired of all the complaints about the age of a site or an article that makes it to the front page.

Please keep in mind, that not everyone starts reading HN when you did. Useful links remain so, and only take up one line on the list of links. Please don't detract from others discovering helpful links/articles.

Thanks for posting this wiradikusuma. 8)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your kind words. Sometimes I find interesting link and just submit it to HN, because if it's already submitted, I can read what HNers think about it, and if it hasn't been submitted (or expired), I can hope HNers to comment (and I can read what they think about it). It's the discussion that I'm after :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For those of you who want a more developer friendly way of working with sprites, I would like to introduce you to Compass ([http://compass- style.org/help/tutorials/spriting/](http://compass- style.org/help/tutorials/spriting/)) Spriting. Along with using SASS, it will make creating and maintaining sprites a lot easier.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome. I can see myself having a sprites.scss file specifically for these and just copy pasting the rules.

<comment><USER5> If you really want to blow your mind, you should look at the automated spriting in Compass: [http://compass- style.org/help/tutorials/spriting/](http://compass- style.org/help/tutorials/spriting/)

<comment><USER6> Or look at Glue : )

[https://glue.readthedocs.org/en/latest/](https://glue.readthedocs.org/en/latest/)

<comment><USER7> There's also [http://csssprites.org/](http://csssprites.org/) (SmartSprites). The web based tools aren't really in the same category as Compass, Glue and SmartSprites - they can't be part of an automated build, so _someone_ is going to have a repetitive manual task to do. Ok for a one-off, but annoying in the long term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> HN frontpage? This is at least 5yrs old - _that_ guy

<comment><USER9> Well, 2.5 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I still prefer Texture Packer ([http://www.codeandweb.com/texturepacker](http://www.codeandweb.com/texturepacker)) - it has a free mode, but the best sprites will be made with the paid version. While it seems to be targeted towards mobile and games, but works very well for CSS sprites also. Does a nice job generating both the CSS and the Sprite image. Really simplifies the ability to have multiple developers working on a single sprite.

</comment><comment><USER11> Been a useful tool for long while now. People looking to create texture atlases/sprites might find a tool like Texture Packer ([http://www.codeandweb.com/texturepacker](http://www.codeandweb.com/texturepacker)) handy.

Out of interest, does anyone use a web-based sprite/atlas generator exclusively when working?

</comment><comment><USER12> [http://pineapple.io/resources/tagged/sprites](http://pineapple.io/resources/tagged/sprites)

</comment><comment><USER13> So cool and useful, I will use this all the time now!

</comment><comment><USER14> I can't wait for the sprite era to end.

<comment><USER15> I haven't used a sprite in quite a while. Gzipped svgs do the job quite well, are very light, and you don't ever have to worry about resolution. The only downside is if/when you have to support IE8.

<comment><USER16> Correct me if I'm wrong, but until all widely used modern browsers support SPDY or HTTP2, the number of requests is still a problem only solvable with sprites.

<comment><USER17> You stand corrected. You can embed the assets as base64 'data-uri' hrefs. Which IMO is the correct approach; sprites smack of the sort of suboptimal overoptimization that complicates workflow and exerts an invisible, mammoth drag on development, by slightly elongating each code-test-debug cycle. You have to get your raster assets -- which, let's face it, are probably being stored in .xcf or .psd format -- into a single .psd (or .xcf; hereinafter implied) so that a proper .png payload can be generated. Then you have to have either logic or CSS mess (or yes, SASS, or ...) to unpack that payload. The whole process is just so obnoxious. Why not just generate base64 strings and apply them to the site with jade (or grunt + jade, or grunt + ...0. SO MUCH EASIER. No scripting Photoshop (ew, COM+). No Guile, so you don't have to be up on your lambdas. Just use the tools you already use.

And, oh, IE8 does data URIs. Why aren't we all doing this again? Oh yeah, I forgot to write the blog post. :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Much simpler: [http://spriteme.org/](http://spriteme.org/)

<comment><USER19> This seems to be the other side of the issue: Sprite Me creates a sprite for you from different images while Sprite Cow takes an existing sprite and allows you to get the coordinates and dimensions of any element in that sprite.

Basically the output of the former could be the input of the latter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> ?

<comment><USER21> Creating a single image file with all your images in it and referencing them in this way lets you use a single HTTP request to load all your images. It's a way of optimizing sites. This is a tool to make generating the CSS needed for this pattern easier.

<comment><USER20> Thanks! I like sites that have a small but helpful "about" section. :)</comment></comment></comment>


Two Ways to Get to a $100 Million Valuation - <AUTHOR> http://www.betakit.com/super-angel-boris-wertz-says-theres-only-two-ways-to-get-to-a-100-million-valuation/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=super-angel-boris-wertz-says-theres-only-two-ways-to-get-to-a-100-million-valuation

<comment><USER2> "Do the exact opposite. Don't spend money acquiring users, instead build your product to go viral, and then monetize through selling access to users (and their data) to advertisers."

This idea that viral=free is pretty dangerous. "Viral" can be a very expensive way to acquire customers. Who develops these viral features? free developers? Who tests them, deploys them, scales systems to handle viral growth? Viral is only free if you aren't paying your development, testing, and ops staff.

<comment><USER3> I'd think building virality into a product or service is one of the cheaper ways of acquiring customers. If you create something that works on its own, but is more fun when friends are using it, people are going to do the marketing for you. Instagram is a great example.

<comment><USER4> "Virality" is not something anyone has figured out how to bottle up and reproduce (and if they have, they're not sharing).

The music industry analogy would be to say "just make all your songs into hit records, that's how you get listeners".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Acronyms Used: (trivial and otherwise)

\--

SaaS: Software as a Service (might as well include it)

\--

LTV: Life time Value (months of use * cost per month)

CAC: Customer Acquisition Cost

ARPU: Average Revenue per User (monthly)

Churn: Rate of customer loss (over specified period)

MAU: Monthly Active Users

\--

WoM: Word of mouth

SEO: Search Engine Optimization

SEM: Search Engine Marketing

</comment><comment><USER6> Warning! The entire article is filled with arcane finance newspeak and obscure acronyms!

tl;dr:

1\. Have a high LTV:CAC ratio (what???)

2\. Have high viral co-efficient. (okay.)

\-----

LTV = Loan to value, a ratio of the outstanding debt on a property to the market value of that property. (or is it "Lifetime value" of a customer?)

\-----

CAC = Customer acquisition cost is the resource a business needs to allocate in order to acquire an additional customer.

\-----

And, oh yeah, just "be viral".

<comment><USER7> > Warning! The entire article is filled with arcane finance newspeak and > obscure acronyms!

Boris Wertz is a SaaS/e-commerce investor. LTV, CAC, ARPU, churn, etc are pretty standard metrics for those types of businesses.

Here is a good guide to SaaS Metrics: [http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas- metrics/](http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-metrics/)

Here is Bessemer's SaaS Reporting Template: [http://www.bvp.com/system/files/reporting_saas.xls?download=...](http://www.bvp.com/system/files/reporting_saas.xls?download=1)

The Smart Bear blog has a good series of SaaS metrics articles: [http://blog.asmartbear.com/?s=saas+metrics](http://blog.asmartbear.com/?s=saas+metrics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Or, get one "investor" to pay you $1 for a 100-millionth of your company.

<comment><USER9> Or a _cool hundred billion_ [https://37signals.com/svn/posts/1941-press- release-37signals...](https://37signals.com/svn/posts/1941-press- release-37signals-valuation-tops-100-billion-after-bold-vc-investment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The two options for a highly valuable company are to either spend heavily to acquire high value users (i.e. Palantir, LTV:CAC ratio), or spend nothing to acquire ubiquitous users (i.e. Facebook, high viral coefficient).

Another important factor not mentioned here (but highly relevant towards a $100M valuation) is market size, which can often provide a restrictive upper bound if the product is too niche (in either case above).

</comment><comment><USER11> Will GrowConf provide videos of the talks from this year? I'd love to listen to Boris Wertz's talk

</comment><comment><USER12> To get an idea of how likely it is, how many startups are reaching a $100+ million valuation in a given year?

<comment><USER13> The rule of thumb among VCs is about 15 per year. Assuming $100+ million is considered a "big success". The cap for big success might be higher.

See more here: [http://www.paulgraham.com/invtrend.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/invtrend.html)

Actually, this article here has some good quantitative data. It puts the number around 200. It looks like most of the companies are non-tech/outside the Valley though.

[http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/05/14/only-200-startups-p...](http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/05/14/only-200-startups- per-year-end-up-mattering-most-of-them-arent-in-tech/)

<comment><USER14> I believe the rule of thumb is that there are 15 that reach $100M _revenue_. We could square the figure of 200 at $100M valuation with this rule of thumb if we assume valuation is say 10X revenue, so 200 reach ~$10M revenue. Thus maybe 1/15 or so of the companies that reach $10M in revenue hit the next level of scale and get to $100M revenue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 1) Revenue

2) Liquid assets

</comment><comment><USER16> what about businesses without users?

<comment><USER17> What do you mean by "users"? A business has to have customers, at least in the long run. Those customers may or may not be the people who actually use the products (Google/Facebook/Yahoo/etc - you're not the customer, you're the product). But whether you're making tires or milk or websites or religious experiences or whatever, you have a product, and _someone_ is using it.

<comment><USER18> I doubt anybody at Goodyear or B.F. Goodrich talk about people who buy their tires as "users". To my way of thinking, saying "users" implies something very specific about the nature of the business in question... eg, Google and Facebook have "users", whereas Goodyear, Proctor & Gamble, and Alcoa have "customers" (or "accounts").</comment></comment></comment>


With Moderate Drinking Under Fire, Alcohol Companies Go on Offensive - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/with-moderate-drinking-under-fire-alcohol-companies-go-on-offensive-1471889160 <comment><USER2> I thought the criticisms were going to be different.

This isn't a popular opinion, but alcohol is extremely hazardous.

There are 88,000 alcohol-related deaths in the US each year[0]. That's more than double the total number of the ever unpopular gun-related deaths[1].

Granted, dying of cirrhosis, or getting hit by a drunk driver, or even getting beat by a drunk boyfriend doesn't have the media appeal of a crazed gun-toting redneck.

Anyway, I think people should be able to hoard all the guns and booze they want, but I have to acknowledge alcohol does have a pretty terrible cost on society.

[0] [http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol- use.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm) [1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_S...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)

</comment><comment><USER3> After enjoying alcohol most of our lives, my wife and I decided to stop drinking about a year and a half ago.

The big advantages are making better use of our evenings and also saving a ton of money. We eat out a lot more, and in probably better restaurants, because even one glass of wine each added significantly to the bill. When we drank two glasses of wine each, alcohol could be half our restaurant bill. We ask for separate checks when eating out with friends but no one seems to mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> We need a better way to get high - alcohol is a pretty shitty drug that we mostly use because it is legal, not because it is the best.

Make pot available on the same terms and see alcohol usage decline.

<comment><USER5> Even when pot becomes legal, I don't think it's going to replace alcohol. They feel different, and I like different substances for different occasions.

<comment><USER6> Especially considering how often it's anxiety-inducing. Hard to say the same for alcohol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "There is no safe level of drinking." By this logic, there is no safe level of anything.

</comment><comment><USER5> Disclaimer: didn't read. behind sign in wall.

I think the approach many people take to things that aren't good for you isn't a good one. I don't need to cut out every unhealthy thing from my life. I just want to know what's healthy and what isn't so I can make some rational choices.

I can make the decision to drink when I want to, even if it's bad for me. Most of my friends fall into 2 camps. 1) don't do anything that's bad for you, or 2) find some pseudo-healthy replacement for the thing you actually want.

</comment><comment><USER8> Don't worry alcohol companies, I've got this.</comment>


The last tracker was just removed from Basecamp.com - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-last-tracker-was-just-removed-from-basecamp-com/ <comment><USER2> I decided mid last year that I was going to redesign one of my projects to break away from 3rd party service reliance for the sake of protecting the end users privacy.

First thing to go was Google Analytics. Depending on your product and how you want to grow it, it's possible that you don't need the range of reporting that GA provides. I know I didn't.

After that I looked at what other third party services and trackers that were being used. I've been opposed to advertising for 15 years, so I didn't need to worry about them as they were never there. I work on other projects that are infested with them and I would love to remove them but marketing loves its metrics and ability to squeeze a dollar out where ever possible. External commenting services were removed (that was more laziness on my behalf) and social login methods.

Lastly (and this one was hardest to part with due to the benefits), CDNs. I decided that any external request would be a problem, as once the request leaves and gets redirected a few times you've provided who knows how many companies data on your end user. Every file would have to reside within the realms of the project.

In the end I'm happy to say that my project (which is still in development) is and will always be self contained, for the protection of the end user.

I do realise that there are other external factors that can track the user, but from my end I'm doing what ever I can to minimise those factors.</comment>


Closed Source Code Allowed to Determine Guilt - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/secret-source-code-pronounces-you-guilty-as-charged/ <comment><USER2> Anyone accused of a crime has a fundamental right to confront the witnesses against. Even if the witness is a computer algorithm. In the United States this right should be protected by the Bill of Roghts. Protecting the financial feasibility of a company is no excuse to erode a fundamental right.</comment>


Golden Image or Foil Ball? (VM maintenance issues) - <AUTHOR> http://madstop.com/2009/02/04/golden-image-or-foil-ball/

<comment><USER2> _The essential basis of running services in "the cloud" is that they run in virtual machines_

The fuck it isn't -- "the cloud" is so much more than the x86 provisioning frippery of EC2 et. al. They provide no logical abstraction, only a physical one.

Hadoop, S3, Google App Engine, Heroku, and other real platforms let you completely avoid dealing with machine-level bullshit.

<comment><USER3> _Hadoop, S3, Google App Engine, Heroku, and other real platforms let you completely avoid dealing with machine-level bullshit._

The problem is that their constraints rule them out for a wide variety of use- cases, I'd go as far as to say: most use-cases.

When building anything serious (and no, the next twitter-bot doesn't qualify) you quickly realize that you'll have to deal with at least some of the machine-level bullshit - because otherwise you'd be either paying through your nose, or simply not be able to implement what you need.</comment></comment>