Close the Book. Recall. Write It Down (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Close-the-Book-Recall-Write/31819 <comment><USER3> I've always found it particularly useful when learning from a source, to write down questions that go to the heart of the matter being presented, rather than just summary notes.

If one later writes answers to the questions, it highlights what one doesn't understand, what one needs to relearn, and how to explain it to oneself and others. It then becomes valuable in the future when needing to review and test key concepts.

I think this is somewhat in line with the ideas presented in this article.

<comment><USER4> That sounds like a great strategy. Thanks for sharing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find it interesting to see how people note take, if at all. I did one of those degree courses where note taking was what you did, continually. Then you re-read your notes and wrote them up properly, then you used those notes to complete the assignment. So for me note-taking is baked in, it is what I do.

I find it odd working with people that do not even use or own a pen, never mind a paper notepad. What I find odd is hen talking through a process or problem I am the one doing the 'napkin sketches' with the no-note people being 'mute' as far as sketching diagrams is concerned.

</comment><comment><USER6> I find myself doing something similar while learning a new lang / framework. For example, I'll watch a pluralsight video, then challenge myself to see how far I can get from a blank directory to a working blogging app without getting stuck (too much). When I do get stuck, I'll refer back and catch the minor details I might have missed trying to copy the code, etc.

</comment><comment><USER7> Incidentally, I find the biggest value of writing code comments is a deeper understanding of the problem at hand. The more verbose, the better. As I keep writing and rewriting descriptions for various warts of the implementation, I start outlining how to fix them in the future, and as each new iteration writes itself, the problem becomes clearer. And then, before I know it, a proper solution emerges, one that is free of warts and without a dire need of being explained in details. Once the problem is rectified, the comment gets retired, as it has served its purpose.

<comment><USER8> I've been solo coding a lot lately, after doing a lot of pair programming professionally. I find keeping a diary is incredibly important. I just ramble through whatever I'm sorting out until I feel like I either can get back to coding, or have enough food for thought to go out and ponder on a walk.

<comment><USER7> I did my best engineering work when I was working all by myself, far out. However the calibration of the sense of where to direct my efforts went completely out of whack in about 7 month. I have coded two beatific systems in the next 6 months after that, but none of my users cared enough, or even had the opportunity to appreciate it.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I have a very specific real-world goal I am trying to fulfill, so that helps me aim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A related method of studying is copying a text. This was actually the way music composition was taught at the time of Bach. A student would take manuscripts of the master and copy them, thus internalising the rudiments. In my personal experience this works much better than studying the dry rules of counterpoint.

<comment><USER10> It has been my experience teaching college math that there is a strong correlation between doing well and taking notes. Many students believe (and the people who give ed tech workshops strongly encourage this view) that they should just sit back, because they will get the beamer slides later, or watch the online videos.

And taking a picture of the board with their smartphone, rather than writing out what is written there, seems to me to be a quite good predictor of having trouble.

What they are doing is logical but experience shows that for many students it is not as effective as actively writing the material.

<comment><USER11> > _strong correlation between doing well and taking notes. Many students > believe [...] that they should just sit back,_

The important thing is not to take notes per se, but to make sure to engage with the lecture and focus, and fully follow the mathematical argument being presented. Personally I pay attention much better without writing notes, but I know other people who pay attention best while drawing unrelated doodles, or by writing down everything that goes on the chalkboard. If I try to write everything down, the action of mechanical symbol copying takes up brain cycles and prevents me from thinking about what I'm hearing/reading.

The "strong correlation" you noticed is because taking notes is a clear signal that the student was paying attention at least enough to write something down. However, you're looking at a symptom rather than the root cause of the problem. For those students who don't take notes, some of them might be fully mentally engaged, and others might be daydreaming or checking facebook on their phones. Of course this group is going to do less well on average than the note-taker group when you lump them all together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That seems really strange, as the best way to remember learning material I know is to use it to solve some task that looks like something you'll actually will likely to do on the job.

Because if you ain't gonna use it, why learn it?

<comment><USER7> Which exercise would you propose for War and Peace?

I'm not trying to be snarky, I actually search for an answer.

<comment><USER12> When I read it, I was around 14, and it really helped me with creative writing and history lessons in school.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but it's more a long-term benefit than an immediate exercise. Had you read it right now, what would you do make sure to get the most out of it? Would you sit down and write an essay about a related topic?

This question keeps bugging me. I know what to do about a programming or a self-development book, but humanities are much harder in that regard.

<comment><USER12> Why would I read it in the first place? That's the question you would have to answer to understand it.

Right now I'm reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and constantly stop to write down scenario ideas based on what he's describing. Of course, I also look up a lot of modern historical research on the matter — so I use recently acquired knowledge to understand related stuff and read about the same things from different sources. I also read comic books, having just finished the original Ghost in the Shell about 2 minutes before starting to write this comment; during the last week, I've set up animated-interactive-comic engine protorype in Unity3d and have been experimenting with primitive compositions that would work well both as game cameras and frozen comic panels.

If you want to read and remember something in the first place, you must have motivation. And creation and curiosity are the best kind.

Oh, and I know for a fact that I won't remember a lot of roman history a year later, and that's ok: I only want to remember staff that I actually find interesting.

<comment><USER7> I read it for the long term benefits - better command of the language, appreciation of the historical context, understandig human nature as described by the author, trained ability to focus on a long form (and thus a long, elaborate thought), a cultural context that I can refer to in a conversation.

There's a bit of a gap between the long term benefits and immediate actionable exercise.

Perhaps you are correct, and if I take each one of the benefits individually I can come up with an exercise that drives the point home. It seems like a daunting task though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Professors make the subject of study their profession of exercise. That's not at all their assignment in lectures. It is to help the students pursue the profession of the subject. The professor's profession of exercise in class is pedagogy. As this article clearly describes, most professors are in fact deeply incompetent.

</comment><comment><USER14> Combine this method with trying to solve a problem with your own ideas before even opening a book. This works especially well in some areas of programming, for example algorithms. After having done this, I can compare my own ideas with the ones presented in the book.

<comment><USER15> Yes. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10513291](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10513291)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> In university I learnt about the PQRST method:

1) Preview - browse through the text or chapter quickly. 2) Question - <USER2> about what this text is about. 3) Read. 4) Summary - make a summary. 6) Test.

This method actually was promoted in a psychology book about memory and memorizing. So not only did they teach about how memory works, but they gave tips how to memorize that, and on top of that they set up the complete book (which was about more than memory) that way. So the chapters in the book had some kind of "preview", a short intro about what the chapter was about, a summary and some test questions, with many pictures and side notes that kept you going.

<comment><USER11> Most textbooks aimed at schoolchildren (from first grade through college) have this kind of format built into them. Personally I found them patronizing and tedious to read, as they take 3x more space than necessary to make their point, and lots of the little called out side notes seemed irrelevant. This format is almost always the product of some kind of committee process rather than a primary author with a strong voice.

Just because it's more effective for someone to {quickly skim, think a bit, read the chapter, then think a bit more} doesn't mean that including those features explicitly in the text is helpful; it's like taking a full meal and blending it into a smoothie, so the eater doesn't need to chew. Some students will skip the main text and just read the summary bits, assuming (usually correctly) that that will suffice to pass the next quiz. Others will try to read the book but be distracted by the disjointed presentation and lose track of the shape of the arguments. Students who get used to this format will be completely lost once they hit harder material which hasn't predigested everything up front. Many of the better students who are used to real books will find the format patronizing.

<comment><USER17> It is easier to skip over extra material than to imagine missing material. Textbooks serve a diverse audience.

Also, it is possibly that the egotistical reader doesn't actually know better than the author.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> rote learning is incredibly powerful. it's one thing to understand what you need to do, and it's something else to have it at the tip of your fingers all the time.

some of my friends in the fuzzy field - policy making, legal - have such impressive recall when framing problems and solutions that right away they are already thinking of the knock on effects of various solutions several levels deeper.

<comment><USER19> _rote learning is incredibly powerful_

It really is. I had very similar experience with learning Chinese.

At first I was all about trying to learn smarter and avoiding the 'outdated' techniques such as rote learning, but several years in I started doing some drills to push my level forward and found that rote learning, and in particular making sure to use active recall rather than passive recall helped immensely.

Of course you also need to have deeper thinking and learning going on, but as you mentioned, with rote learning and memorisation all the basics become instantly available at your fingertips and you can expend your mental energy on more productive thought processes.

</comment></comment><comment> Anthony-G I find it beneficial to answer questions on Stack Exchange sites relating to a topic that I've recently learned or worked on. It's particularly useful for reinforcing knowledge of subjects that I might have learned a month ago – but which has already started to fade from memory.

I also like books that have questions at the end of each section or chapter. As the original article states, it's easy for the reader to mislead themselves into thinking that they're familiar with the subject area while reading – or re-reading – the text. It's not until they've finished reading and attempt to answer questions that they know how well they've actually retained the material.

</comment><comment><USER20> How important is it really to be able to recall information using ones long- term memory these days though? With my phone I pretty much have access to all the information in the world from one single place, from almost anywhere in the western world. Why would I want to memorize most of it? Books are not only for sharing knowledge but also remembering it? These days, just memorizing core concepts such as finding the correct information, how to evaluate it, and how to apply it should be enough? Leave the rest of the recalling for our computers.

<comment><USER21> I think it's at least very helpful in building emergent knowledge, knowledge of connections between things that, only after experience / long-term processing, you realize are instructive or related or at least similar or, very commonly, "Y is really just a special case of the more general X" idea.

It's still completely possible to learn some of the outgoing connections or equivalences after a specific search of the internet, but the more things you spend time ruminating on, the more connections/realizations seem to almost "bubble up" out of your subconscious/whatever. I think this is what [inspiration]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_inspiration#Ancient_m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_inspiration#Ancient_models_of_inspiration)) is: the result of subconscious processing or drawing relationships between thoughts in your head that are memorized. That, I think, is what you wouldn't have anymore if you were to completely outsource your knowledge to the Internet. I have witnessed some brilliant statisticians come up with completely new ways for researchers to think of their data/analysis, without ever consulting Google...though that's a relatively poor example, and more related to developed Mathematical Intuition than anything else. I would argue that said developed intuition is a perfect example of drawing underlying connections between things by letting them stew around in your brain, connections that would be very much harder to find overtly.</comment></comment>


Evolved antenna - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna <comment><USER2> Reminds me of an old article about evolutionary circuit design. The computer was tasked with creating a osscilator using physical hardware. It created a really complex and unconventional design that no-one understood, but it worked, only not work outside of the lab. As it turned out the algorithm had designed it in a way that it used the radio noise from the computer it was running on as a source. It had effectively made an antenna.

<comment><USER3> Was it Creatures From Primordial Silicon?

[http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73](http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73)

They used a FPGA for voice detection. It was fascinating they didn't understand how it worked, and it wasn't a universal design because it depended on manufacturing variation.

<comment><USER4> I read about the same research in an article in Discover Magazine: [http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun/evolvingaconscio1453](http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun/evolvingaconscio1453)

<comment><USER5> This article is what made me decide to major in CS. I very much remember reading it in my high school library during the final few days before graduation. Every time I see it mentioned somewhere I get that feeling . . . not quite nostalgia, but a reminder of why I love what I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting to see this antenna here. I heard the creator speak at a local IEEE event a few years ago. Quite remarkable. Nobody would intuit an antenna design like that. Great demonstration of the power of GA.

Antenna optimization software has changed antenna design completely. Before wide-spread computer simulation, there was an awful lot of antenna range cut- and-try. Antennas are much better now. Learning to drive the modeling software is still a huge amount of work, but the results are well worth it.

An example from the world of amateur radio: the only popular HF tri-band beam to survive from the pre-simulation days is the KT-34 and big brother KT-34XA, originally from KLM. I was talking to Mike Stahl about it (The M in KLM, also one of the M's in M-squared) and he said he spent months going up and down towers at an antenna range. Pretty much all other hand-tuned competitors from that era have fallen by the wayside, the new simulation-verified designs being much better.

Mike is a great hands-on antenna designer -- when the Stanford dish was new he designed several feed horns for it.

<comment><USER7> Are the software radiation simulations accurate? Are they based on solving complex physics formulas?

<comment><USER6> Well..... for some definition of accurate.

For large antennas with thin structures, the typical solver is "Method of Moments". NEC2 was developed by the government and is public domain. It is quite popular, and does some things well but it is also easy to stumble into modeling bugs/deficiencies, and isn't much use above high UHF. But is very useful if you know how not to step in the bugs, and is free. NEC4 falls under ITAR, the last I heard. So it isn't particularly hard to get a license, but you have to clear ITAR.

Microwave structures are more often done with a finite-element model, as I understand it.

Both rely on numerical approximations to Maxwell's equations. At least for MoM, each element cheats the boundary conditions a bit in order to make the problem tractable. With a fine enough grid, you get a good enough answer.

Another friend that has started two antenna companies is an NEC4 guru. I asked him: "How can I tell if my model has a small enough grid?" Him: "Keep reducing the mesh until the answer stops changing. When it stops, you had enough elements in the previous try." Antenna modelling is a bit of an art, I'm not expert, just hack a few as a hobby.

<comment><USER7> Sounds like there's some manual steps to create the simulation. I'm wondering how these genetic algorithms can automatically feed into the simulation and get back a single number to drive the GA fitness function.

<comment><USER6> Well, I used a Yagi optimizer at one point. With that system, the antenna was parameterized. I specified certain fixed values, like overall boom length and nominal element diameter, and total number of elements. The element lengths and spacings were free for optimization. Fitness function was a scoring of front-to-back ratio, front-to-side ratio, and max allowable SWR over a frequency range of interest, with a goal of maximum forward gain. The optimizer tuned the free variables.

For different applications the various scoring measurements would be adjusted differently. (Sometimes you care greatly about minimizing back and side lobes, other times not so much, for instance.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Took a few clicks to find the referenced paper as PDF,

So here it is:

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Hornby/publication...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Hornby/publication/226096470_An_Evolved_Antenna_for_Deployment_on_Nasa's_Space_Technology_5_Mission/links/5447e2fb0cf2d62c30526293/An- Evolved-Antenna-for-Deployment-on-Nasas-Space-Technology-5-Mission.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER9> Skipper: "Professor, why did our rescue radio fail?"

Professor: "Hmmm, it looks like somebody straightened out the antenna. It had an unusual shape for a reason."

Skipper: "Giillligan?! Do you know anything about this antenna?"

Gilligan: "Uh, I'm sorry guys, the antenna looked all bent up, so I straightened it. See how _nice_ it looks now?"

(They both bop Gilligan on the noggin.)

</comment><comment><USER10> I accidentally "evolved" a microwave antenna in my microwave oven, once.

I put some hematite sand on the top of a glass plate that was suspended about 5 inches from the bottom of the microwave oven. I wanted to see what kind of pattern the standing waves would heat the hematite to (this microwave didn't have an RF stirring fan).

Instead of some standing wave pattern, I ended up with a fractal like antenna that grew from a molten blob in the middle. The initial molten blob extended into arms of molten material, with each arm necessarily extending in the direction that maximized RF absorption, causing additional material to melt. It grew brighter and brighter as it extended, reached some peak, then some of the arms shorted and it dimmed. Then the plate shattered from the heat.

I wrote some software that converted the picture into antenna elements for some free antenna simulation package I found at the time, but it couldn't support enough elements to get close to the shape of the antenna and would just crash beyond 10 or so.

I'm not sure how useful of an antenna it would be, since it was maximized to generate heat, but it was a neat kitchen experiment.

<comment><USER11> I would love to see pictures or a video of this in action!

<comment><USER10> I don't have a video, and I can't find the original picture, but here's a very low resolution version: [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000340843432/c1f1...](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000340843432/c1f1f74b9f2e4951fad9fbefef55467c.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you're interested in generative design beyond antenna construction, check out what Autodesk has been doing: [https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/generative- design](https://www.autodesk.com/solutions/generative-design)

</comment><comment><USER13> And then there is phased arrays, a computer-controlled array of antennas which creates a beam of radio waves that can be electronically steered to point in different directions without moving the antennas.

Pure math (matrix of delays per element). Go crazy :)

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

<comment><USER14> The same thing is used in ultrasounds (except with sound) which is how they can "scan" without having any moving parts. Super cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> They say this is only used rarely. I'm curious why people wouldn't design every antenna this way

<comment><USER16> Talking less about antennas but more about the overall concept, most evolutionary algorithms don't take manufactoring into account at all, so they tend to be a pain to actually build.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Evolved antennas are good for certain purposes, but for highly directional links, the laws of physics say that there isn't much better than some variation on a human + CAD + Matlab designed parabolic reflector (whether it's center feed, compact cassegrain, elliptical offset feed, etc).

Take a look at the dishes used for 71-86 GHz band mmwave links for instance.

<comment><USER6> "Better" when the goal is a very narrow beam pattern and minimal side- and back-lobes. That isn't always the goal.

For instance, putting your entire FCC city-of-license within your grade A signal contour from X miles away at a bearing of B. Or, in one case I am aware of, covering your puny city of license in one direction, and incidentally getting good coverage into the much bigger city off the back of the beam so that your sales department can get some traction selling advertising.

<comment><USER17> Not my field, only related to it, but looking at the ERI antenna catalog, they resemble human designed variations on yagi, dipole and log periodic antennas...

[https://www.eriinc.com/catalog/antennas/](https://www.eriinc.com/catalog/antennas/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > This sophisticated procedure

evolutionary algorithms are anything but sophisticated. i love them, but sophisticated they are not.

<comment><USER19> The results are sophisticated.

<comment><USER20> Evolutionary algorithms are just a variation of pseudo-random search.

<comment><USER21> Sophisticated is (also) a synonym of convulted.

<comment><USER19> All of us are products of evolution. Either you are sophisticated or convoluted. Choose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> not in the article (or the linked): Over the lifetime of the spacecraft, Did it perform as well or better than the conventional? Does anyone know?

</comment><comment><USER23> Probably worth revisiting with Q-learning

</comment><comment><USER24> I <3 NASA</comment>


Review our startup  - wibba.com - discover and share kickass products - <AUTHOR>

we've spent some time developing http://wibba.com as a platform which makes it quick and easy to discover and share cool products online and offline.
share products you think are cool or follow others to keep updated with things that they're loving.
this is a early alpha.
you can share product links, follow others and be followed, link with twitter and more.
there is so much noise out there its impossible to keep updated with everything going on.
I want to follow Scobleizer so I can see all the new apps he's loving, I want to follow a friend whose a DJ to see all the new tunes he's digging. I've got a good friend who works in fashion - I wanna see the trends he's discovering.
We developed this purely for products, not general chatter
would love to hear what you guys think - please bear in minds its really early days.
thanks so much
http://wibba.com <comment><USER2> The good: Signup was easy. Likewise adding a link was easy. I like the autofill of info that was extracted from the site, nice work. The site layout is super easy to use but I'm not sure how it's going to work when there are a large number of products.

The bad: I signed up with an email and password and my avatar is broken and I can't find a way to fix it. Since you're in early alpha you should have a really obvious feedback mechanism.

Suggestions: I don't know what the differentiator is from all of the other sites that provide product listings. Also, think about revenue first and foremost.</comment>


Startup Workaway III: 16 founders, 10 days, 1 Greek mansion - <AUTHOR> http://startupworkaway.com/?p=1

<comment><USER2> Well this is one way to up your initial burn rate.

<comment><USER3> It says it's only 8 hours a day.

<comment><USER4> Not energy, cash. Really, if you have money lying around for R&R, my suggestion is taking the SO somewhere nice for the weekend and completely forgetting you have partners or a startup.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: ReadMe.io – Beautiful Documentation Made Easy - <AUTHOR> http://readme.io/home <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all, founder here! I've worked at a bunch of startups, and inevitably we'd have to make a dev.startup.com and I'd wonder why we were re-inventing the wheel each time. Every startup needs this, they all have the same basic features, yet every startup has to do it themselves.

Ergo, ReadMe! I wanted to do more than just documentation; it's a full developer hub for your community. The goal is to make it so any startup can have beautiful, interactive, collaborative, Stripe-quality docs without wasting valuable time.

HN has been a huge help while building it – I even picked the name after finding the domain for sale on HN :)

<comment><USER2> How many people do you have working on the product? It's beautiful and I love how fast it's progressing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the developer/designer, and gdillon is doing everything non-technical!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Love the attention to details, like the focus event on the password field: [https://dash.readme.io/login](https://dash.readme.io/login)

<comment><USER4> I know! This just makes me want to hug something!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Heap Analytics is in the process of moving over our documentation to ReadMe.io and so far the process has been amazing.

The ReadMe team is really responsive and helpful, the documentation is beautiful and the interface goes above and beyond.

Just to give you an idea of how polished the service is, if you select a background color that contrasts poorly with the text, the interface will let you know. It also automatically generates a "white" logo for darker pages. This has almost nothing to do with writing documentation, but has a lot to do with making documents readable for users, which is easy to overlook if you're not a designer.

See our docs: [http://docs.heapanalytics.com/](http://docs.heapanalytics.com/)

Right now they are a transcription from [http://heapanalytics.com/docs](http://heapanalytics.com/docs) but we're planning more robust docs and ReadMe will make that process a lot smoother.

</comment><comment><USER6> "ReadMe has made our lives infinitely easier. We've had it on our todo list for over a year, and a day after finding ReadMe we had our docs launched. We're super impressed. You guys have built a fucking awesome tool."

I don't know, but having swearing on a professional website is probably not the best way to go. Looks like a nice startup though.

<comment><USER7> to be fair the people who get appalled by reading the f-word are probably not the target customer. who drops f-word all the time? programmers, entrepreneurs, designers, developers, managers. certainly not established 100 year old corporation, but most certainly the hip, fast moving, horny, 20~30 something olds who eat and breathe technology.

<comment><USER8> More like insecure, inarticulate brogrammers who are getting burnt out overworking but think it's cool. I don't find swearing to be a conducive way of creating an inclusive, thoughtful work environment. I had enough of this fucking bullshit in college. Time to grow the fuck up.

<comment><USER8> Now that I re-read my comment, what I actually meant to say is - I had enough bravado swearing by young people in college, and it is time to grow up and act professionally - but now I realize the comment can be read to mean that I had enough of non-swearing PC behavior in college, and it's ok to swear as an adult at work. Interestingly; I stay at an equilibrium of points after roughly equal upvotes and downvotes. I wonder if it would've swung -- or ++ if the meaning was universally conveyed correctly by me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This looks nice but $60/mo seems incredibly pricey when there are also nice, and similar, open source solutions such as [http://ricostacruz.com/flatdoc/](http://ricostacruz.com/flatdoc/)

What extra value am I paying for?

<comment><USER10> It saves a lot of developer time, you would just have to write the docs in markdown, not have to worry about the layout, hosting or building another app just to manage your docs. IMO it provides a lot of value for money. You could always just use the free plan and then upgrade later. With markdown files, you wouldn't really get locked into the platform.

<comment><USER11> As far as I see, Readme.io has additional features but everything you've listed is available for free on readthedocs.org, built on Sphinx which is free software.

<comment><USER12> Why should they not coexist? Some want it for free and some want to pay for e.g. support or additional features.

Last time i watch at RTD it was a plain .md project import from e.g. GitHub only to show a plain documentation.

In Readme.io you can edit/write your docs, have blog function and an integrated discussion plattform (for support your users). If you not need this features, you can use RTD or directly sphinx.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> We just released our API on apiary ([http://docs.commando.apiary.io](http://docs.commando.apiary.io)), but after finding ReadMe.io on ProductHunt, we signed up for a paid plan that very day, and are in the process of migrating over.

Our focus for our API documentation is beautifully designed and easy to read. All the extra features of Apiary and Mashup such as proxying, rate limiting, billing, and mocking requests are not really a priority for us. ReadMe.io is a perfect fit.

<comment><USER14> What made you decide to get a paid plan instead of the free plan?

<comment><USER13> Mainly, we are a startup ourself, and we know how much blood sweat and tears goes into it. ReadMe.io provides us a lot of value, and thus we want to pay to make sure that value stays around. Also, using our own domain is nice. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The most important feature for documentation is /a really good/ search. I can't see anything about searching on the site? Can you clarify?

IMO everybody should use [https://readthedocs.org/](https://readthedocs.org/) for documentation since all the docs will be put into elasticsearch (backed by Rackspace FYI) and the results when searching are of really good quality.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed! ReadMe does search, with the added benefit of also searching user questions, blog posts and errors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This seems highly dependent on Javascript for displaying its (actually static) content. As someone who likes his notebook fan to stay calm and not have websites shove obnoxious things into her face and thus browses with JS off by default, please do not require Javascript to read your documentation. JS is nice for animations or truly dynamic content, but why require it for static things like this?

<comment><USER17> I am just guessing, but the site uses CodeMirror (JS) to do syntax highlighting.

<comment><USER16> Check out the examples, they load content via JS.

<comment><USER17> Oh sorry, you meant why does it use JS to load content and not why it uses JS at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Looks like Slate - [https://github.com/tripit/slate](https://github.com/tripit/slate)

</comment><comment><USER19> Love it and agree it's beautiful, but as a startup, I disagree with the "it's just 1hr dev a month" in cost. Setting up something from GitHub onto Heroku or similar costs me about 2 hours (if that), ever. And if it can be updated without too much of a pain, it's hardly going to take >1hr of dev work to maintain the _project_ (update the docs perhaps...but you'll need to take the time to do that regardless).

I totally also agree with the sentiment that people don't pay what most SaaS apps are worth. We save users 3-6 hours per month and charge $13 for the privilege, but even then people frequently complain about pricing (can't please everyone).

Just my 2c. Love the concept and could see myself using it, but the price point is just too much beyond free, compared to DIYing....but I'm an open source person, so that could just be internal biases.

</comment><comment><USER20> We've been using Readme.io for our documentation for a while now ([http://api.knowtify.io](http://api.knowtify.io)). Love the team, but mostly I love that the non-technical folks (ie - me) can maintain/update our API docs without engineering having to time on it. It's one of the last things engineers want to spend time on (and one of the last things I'd want them to spend time on)...

</comment><comment><USER21> Mozilla is also using ReadMe for Brick: [http://brick.mozilla.io/](http://brick.mozilla.io/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Really well done product. Using it for my site now.

What are the future plans for making this into a developer hub?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Frank!

We've already built out a bunch of community features to make it more than "just docs", but we have a lot of things we're really excited about.

We want to do things like have an "application dashboard" (where users can manage API keys), some basic (optional!) API management, onboarding "wizard" and more – the whole developer experience should be cohesive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Will I be able to export my docs? I'm not really willing to put my docs on readme.io without knowing I can export all my work if you all go under. I'm currently an Apiary for Companies subscriber and value that feature but, prefer your design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup! There's an Export Docs button on the settings page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> We (StatusPage.io) are also in the process of getting our docs switched over. Greg helped out with the initial migration which was awesome. Definitely recommend other SaaS companies have a look.

</comment><comment><USER25> Looks awesome. I am currently using Swagger to document a REST API. can I import from the popular Swagger format ( YML) to your platform ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Swagger is on the short-term roadmap! In the slightly shorter future (AKA it's working now, although we disabled it for new signups due to overload), we support apidocjs.com

<comment><USER26> This looks very nice.

Since you mentioned Swagger--We've started using API Blueprint for internal API design and collaboration. Do you have any plans to support importing from API Blueprint?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've seen a couple of these projects lately. They are really cool and I see the need.

What seems to be missing (and is a no-brainer in my opinion) are auto- generated client libraries. It seems like you could _easily_ create Ruby, Python, and PHP libraries if you know their API endpoints, methods and parameters. At the very least, you could create a starting point for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> 100% agreed. I wanted to get that feature done for the HN launch, but it didn't make the cut.

We have a lot of APIs using us now, so we're going to revamp our API endpoint builder with our new knowledge, and this will be a huge part of it. Check back in about a week :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The code blocks are really something else in terms of looks. Is that a custom look, or is it some open source plugin?

<comment><USER29> What's so special about it? Where can I see an example?

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's a screenshot if you don't want to sign up (although signing up is pretty painless and completely free :) )

[http://cl.ly/image/020W0r1x3J1n](http://cl.ly/image/020W0r1x3J1n)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I suggest you guys to host documentations of some major free software projects. It benefits both you and them. They get nice documentation, you guys get some attention.

Edit: Feel free to contact me if you like the idea and would like to do it for KDE project. I'm a minor contributor and I might be able to ease the process.

<comment><USER31> Hey, I'm on the ReadMe team: We love open source. We've started working with a few great projects already. Check out the Ghost.org documentation (and reach out to their CTO, Hannah, she's great!) and the Brick by Mozilla docs are linked elsewhere in this thread. There are a few more that have yet to launch. Shoot firstname.lastname@example.com a note if you'd like to get KDE started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How does this connect to an API? Does it read Swagger? Or is all the setup (paths, parameters, etc) done manually?

<comment><AUTHOR> Currently, you can do it manually or using [http://apidocjs.com](http://apidocjs.com). (The latter is disabled for new accounts due to heavy load; will be back this week.)

Swagger (and a few other even cooler options) are on their way!

<comment><USER12> Creator of apiDoc here.... really nice that you use apiDoc :-)

I really like your nice and clean template.

A similar project was in my mind since i create apiDoc, but due the lack of time i am happy now that you create such a project.

Will link to your site soon, so that apiDoc users can see your good alternative for creating and hosting a documentation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! I looked at a lot of "standards" (Blueprint, RAML, etc), and yours was the first that felt right.

I'd love to talk more! My email is firstname.lastname@example.com. Awesome work on apiDoc; it's been great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Reminds me of Manula [http://www.manula.com/](http://www.manula.com/) which makes something that looks like this. And has been around for 2 years (since 2012). There aren't many solutions that tackle this problem, so keep up the great work!

</comment><comment><USER34> Wow, wasn't expecting all the HN discount graphics on the site. I guess you either (1) are really fast at updating your UI and pricing, or were (2) really counting on this getting upvoted into the HN main page.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am currently working on improving the documentation for Conda, Bokeh, Numba, and a bunch of other scipy-related tools. This looks pretty spiffy. How hard is it to import existing documentation?

</comment><comment><USER35> Your example page is kinda busted when scrolling horizontally. (on Chrome 37)

[http://imgur.com/HmzC1v0](http://imgur.com/HmzC1v0)

Looks good otherwise though.

</comment><comment><USER36> This looks awesome. I can't wait to start using it!

</comment><comment><USER37> This looks beautiful and I have been testing your product yesterday and today. I have the following suggestions, which if implemented would convert the company I work for to your product. :)

1\. Saving Basic Auth credentials so the user doesn't have to paste it in each time they test an endpoint.

2\. A way to automatically populate the request form fields by clicking on an example request.

Keep it up; all my colleagues think it's a beautiful and well done tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Will be done ASAP! (the multiple alerts is a huge pain)

2\. Same

Shoot me an email (email@example.com) and I'll keep you updated on the progress of these two features. And in the meantime, I'd love to pick your brain on your use-case.</comment></comment>


Programming Languages: What tool is right for which job? - <AUTHOR> http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/browse

<comment><USER2> I think it's a good question. There are so many languages around that it is hard to choose from. I think it's beneficial to get good at a handful of languages and use them. However, there might be a time where a newer language is just so great that you have to use it. For example, in web development should you use straight Javascript? Jquery? Dart? Coffee Script?

Personally, Python, Java, and ObjC gets me everything I need and it allows me to get really good at a few languages instead of trying to keep 10 different ones in my head. Granted, if you know a few languages any new one should be fairly easy to pick up.

You don't want to start a job with some new language only to find out that it hasn't evolved enough to give you exactly what you need in your project.

I'd love to hear how people decide what language to use in their business. Do you pick Python over Java because it's simpler to write? Do you use PHP because of how well it's documented?

Like others, I'm saying this based on the title as I can't get the page to load.

<comment><USER3> I think this tool gives too fine-grained an outlook about whether a language is "suitable" or "not."

Some languages (e.g. Matlab, Erlang) were designed for specific domains in which they excel, but most were designed to be general-purpose. So, most of those languages are really suitable for most tasks.

There are few things that, for example, one might code in Java, that I would not consider using Python for. The two are very different, of course, but for non-specialized applications, the practical reasons for using one over the other come down to other concerns; ubiquity, your own familiarity, interoperability with your existing infrastructure, etc. Me, just I'll choose the novel general-purpose language out of interest.

Then again, a few languages I've worked with (i.e. PHP, Matlab) deserve thoroughly to be crucified for their crimes against computer science and developers everywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I did what I always do when presented with a list like this - I checked out Visual Basic. The list makes no distinction between BASIC, Visual Basic and VB.NET. That killed any credibility the list might otherwise have had, and after realising that it appears to be more of a "what's hot, what's not" list, I stopped reading. It definitely does not do what the title suggests it does. No value.

<comment><USER5> I think it's safe to assume the rankings are for VB.NET.

<comment><USER4> I doubt it. VB.NET does what C# does. There are more VB.NET code searches on MSDN than there are C# code searches, which doesn't align with the ranking in the article. The rankings make more sense when applied to VB6 and earlier.

<comment><USER5> That may be the case, but on the other hand C#'s TIOBE ranking is quite a bit higher than VB's. And really, neither metric is a good proxy for how much code is actually being cut in either language.

The only thing that's certain is that language popularity surveys are painfully easy to cherry-pick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sorry the site's having issues. I haven't done any significant work on it in most of two years and there's rather a lot more data in it than when I actually worked on it.

So, yes, it's true, I haven't used the right tool for the job. Except that as with so many things "the right tool" is "an actively maintained codebase". Looking into why it's crashing now, but don't expect any miracles

<comment><USER6> Should be running (a bit) better now, though likely still on the slow side.

Turns out a query I'd written back when there were 20k votes in the system didn't perform so well now that there are 200k votes in the system. Go figure.

<comment><USER7> Scale is always one of the most difficult things for me to plan for. Over last summer I was working on a registration system for an ISP which worked really well in testing. Once the database exploded to over 1M rows however, that application's performance was noticeably suffering. Unfortunately now that system is live, and the schema can't be changed for a few months...oops

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Really? Go is on there, but ActionScript is not?

I realize that the future of the Flash Platform is in doubt, but Flash is still a great choice for a lot of things, like:

\- This language is good for beginners.

\- This language is well documented.

\- I find this language easy to prototype in.

<comment><USER9> Why would a beginner want to learn a dying technologlash unless you were writing games, Flash was never the right answer.

<comment><USER10> I do write games, and Actionscript (3, not 2) is a lovely language.

<comment><USER9> Since I specifically excluded you, what's your point?

<comment><USER10> That Actionscript is still a useful language, within it's niche. And since this post is all about finding the right language for particular niches I don't see why you'd argue against it's inclusion.

<comment><USER9> I'd already made that point by excluding games from my statement. When someone says except for X, bla bla bla, you don't respond by saying yea but I do X.

<comment><USER10> But you can respond by going "But it's silly to exclude X from discussion". Which is why I have been trying (and, evidently failing) to convey.

<comment><USER9> I didn't exclude X from the discussion, I excluded it from my criticism; that means I already agree X is good for games and there's no reason to bring it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like the idea but feel it's an echo chamber. I haven't seen a single surprising ranking yet.

</comment><comment><USER12> How inefficient is Ruby really? This tool surprised me. Can any Ruby-ists chime in?

[http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/statements/programs-...](http://therighttool.hammerprinciple.com/statements/programs- written-in-this-language-tend-to-be-effic)

<comment><USER13> The interpreter in 1.8 and earlier is definitely pretty sluggish; I believe the 1.9 implementation was intended to be quite a lot faster, and JRuby is pretty fast. No idea about Rubinius or IronRuby or other alternative implementations.

It's definitely the case that stock Ruby 1.8 is slow for a great many applications, though. Having said that, there's alternatives, and a lot of the time efficiency of execution is not at the forefront of the objectives for systems written in Ruby.

<comment><USER14> > I believe the 1.9 implementation was intended to be > quite a lot faster, > and JRuby is pretty fast.

"faster" compared to what? "pretty fast" compared to what?

<comment><USER13> As a sibling quote mentioned, 1.9 is fast relative to 1.8. JRuby is pretty fat in general, with the potential to approach Java speed at times, although I think specific things can slow you down a lot. In particular it was the case (not sure if it still is) that exceptions in JRuby were pretty expensive, but many Ruby libraries treat them as cheap, leading to performance problems if you move from one platform to another.

I was not trying to be precise though, just give a feel for the different implementations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Something the site didn't answer, what high-level languages are suitable for writing highly-parallel network code? I need to write some code that does stuff like: given a couple million URLs, download each, extract an element, gather all extracted elements in a list.

<comment><USER16> `Highly-parallel network code` was the problem erlang was designed for. Haskell would also be a good fit.

<comment><USER17> "Erlang was designed to program fault-tolerant systems" according to Joe Armstrong [1].

[1] [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Systems-that-Never- Stop-J...](http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Systems-that-Never-Stop-Joe- Armstrong)

<comment><USER16> How do you make a system fault-tolerant? Make it distributed. How do distributed systems work? By communicating via a network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is it me, or do a lot of the 'statement' links not seem to load?

<comment><USER19> Heh indeed, and in a couple a days "How I improved my site after Hacker news etc..."

<comment><USER6> Eh, site's held up to hacker news 4 or 5 times in the past. Never been a problem before.

It's been around for two years slowly bitrotting (I really should do some maintenance on it). Just gradually been getting slower and this time it hit the threshold where it was too slow to stay up. It happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Also ran: "What tool should I have built my website with?" -- can't get a pageload

</comment><comment><USER21> This isn't the right question to be asking.

There are certainly cases where one language at another for a given task, e.g. Ruby is better for string parsing than PHP. But in many (most?) scenarios the _technique_ used for the job matters far more than the language. Sorting is an easy example: bubble sort is a crap solution regardless of the language.

Disclaimer: I can't read the actual page due to 503's and the cache isn't helpful, so I'm responding to the title and what I can divine from the linked page.

<comment><USER22> While I agree with this statement, that technique is more important than superficial or trivial language decisions, I think there is a second level of reasoning that needs to be brought into play here.

Once you know several techniques and several languages, and have started to get a skill at identifying the core bits of a project, the process (or series of questions to answer) becomes:

\- what technique will effectively handle to core problems?

\- What languages make this technique simple to implement?

and then the real kicker, which in a way comes full circle to the original naive analysis:

\- in the best language for $technique, are there any problems with secondary and ancillary problems associated with it? (e.g. i have to do this really fast lookup table of simple operations, C would be great for this, except that the data is irregular and involves a lot of string parsing C sucks at that..., or the central problem here is just a big fold, i'll use Haskell, but it involves a lot of tricky memory optimization to be fast enough...)

Out of this of course arises a meta-technique of learning to partition problems into stages in different languages, which of course has its own problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This was extracted from computer scientists and created by one, otherwise PHP would be numer one the stament: "Is so easy to get things done with this language". Right now its 10 staments are all negative (not even one neutral)

</comment><comment><USER24> Even if you are adept in using a highly efficient and effective language for doing each job, if no one else is using the language it's utility becomes limited. That's because none of us work in vacuum. Computers run by different people in separate locations cannot talk to each other unless those people cooperate. They have to agree on some things. And further, we're all using software and systems designed and built in whole or in part by someone else.

I sometimes wonder what we could achieve if choices of language were reduced and we were all forced into "speaking the same language". Would the advantages of a common language supercede the advantages of any one language's design?

<comment><USER25> You wonder what would happen if we all wrote C++ on Windows? I hope you can answer that question yourself :).

But seriously, i think its _great_ that we can all work in our favorite language, and we can get away with it. I can write a web service in common lisp, and you can use it in your Rails cat picture app, that also uses a brainf*ck script to convert the cat pictures in a suitable format. And your company can also write an iPhone version of your app in objC and a desktop version in C++ for windows and Linux. Man, protocols are awesome :)

<comment><USER24> It's just a thought. A "what if".

I trace the existence of many languages to having no common instruction set in hardware.

Different assembly languages for different hardware. This was very frustrating for people many years ago.

If protocols (rules) are awesome what if we had had a protocol that asked the chip makers to use a common (extendable) instruction set for all hardware? What if there had only been one assembly language?

It seems that all abstractions, from Pascal or Lisp virtual machines to C to higher and higher level languages to the ones popular today, are all descended from the search for a way to deal with that initial lack of protocol (rule) to get hardware makers to use the same instruction set and thereby let programmers use the same assembly language.

I could be very wrong on this.

<comment><USER26> > It seems that all abstractions, from Pascal or Lisp virtual machines to C to > higher and higher level languages to the ones popular today, are all > descended from the search for a way to deal with that initial lack of > protocol (rule) to get hardware makers to use the same instruction set and > thereby let programmers use the same assembly language.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this.

But Lisp and C derives from very different views of the underlying machine. It is rather hard to unify a lisp machine (or other lambda calculus machine) instruction set with the instruction set assumed by a language like C. Even assuming extensibility of the instruction set, constructing a machine that can execute both the "usual" instruction set and lambda calculus efficiently is very very hard.

So this may not really be practical.

<comment><USER24> So with Lisp or even Forth, the proper approach would be to have "Lisp chips" or "Forth chips" (which were recently discussed here)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Haskell.

<comment><USER28> Lisp.</comment></comment>


Scientists find traces of sea plankton on ISS surface - <AUTHOR> http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/745635

<comment><USER2> Apollo 12 retrieved a Surveyor 3 camera that had been on the Moon for over two years and contained _Streptococcus mitis_ bacteria that survived in a dormant state and were recultured back on Earth. Pete Conrad, Apollo 12 commander, said, "I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole...Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [anything] about it."

<comment><USER3> As much as I _WANT_ to believe, and I did for a long while, that Strep was on the moon for years, it's possible that this was a false positive. That being said, I think this is still an important event and is a good starting point for experimentation.

 _" One of the implements being used to scrape samples off the Surveyor parts could have been laid down on a non-sterile laboratory bench, and then was used to collect surface samples for culturing. It is, therefore, quite possible that the microorganisms were transferred to the camera after its return to Earth. Furthermore, the Surveyor 3 camera was returned from the Moon in a nylon duffel bag, and was not in the type of sealed airtight metal container used to return lunar samples in the early Apollo missions. It is therefore possible that it was contaminated by the astronauts and the environment in the Apollo 12 capsule itself. The bacterial test is now non-repeatable because the parts were subsequently taken out of quarantine and fully re-exposed to terrestrial conditions."_

source: [http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/experiment/exper.aspx?exp_i...](http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/experiment/exper.aspx?exp_index=1651)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "We are conducting special works to polish somehow and put illuminators in > order. This is particularly needed during long space flights," Solovyev > added.

The whole article seems to be mangled by bad translation. It's difficult to tell what it is about.

</comment><comment><USER5> It was probably blown up there by "uplifting air currents" according to : [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2728979/Never...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2728979/Never- mind-alien-life-SEA-PLANKTON-space-Creatures-living-surface-ISS-officials- say.html)

We have to keep in mind that, even at that altitude, there are still air molecules. They're extremely sparse, but just enough that the drag they induce on the ISS and its large surface area of solar panels make periodic boosting necessary.

<comment><USER6> Would the moon ever need a "boost"? Even though it's probably not hitting any air molecules from Earth, it's still colliding with tons of space debris a day.

<comment><USER7> The moon is being continually boosted by the rotation of the earth. The moon's gravity causes tides on the earth's surface. However, the shape of the earth is slightly ahead of being directly lined up with the moon because of inertia and sloshing. That uneven earth shape exerts a slightly uneven pull on the moon which increases its angular velocity around the earth, and slows down the angular velocity of the earth's rotation.

         .--<comment>--.             ^
        /   <-    \            |
       |   Earth  |            O Moon
       \    ->   /
        '--___--'

Note, the bulge of the earth is slightly exaggerated in this diagram, and the moon is further away on this scale.

In effect, the rotation of the earth is dragging the moon around faster (which causes it to move further from the earth and go slower).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> {Nat Turner says} This finding on the International Space Station makes it clear that the earth is surrounded by an aura of life, at least in the form of plankton. Though the particular type of plankton has not been identified, it has been established that it is not the type of plankton, which would have possibly been picked up from the delivery launch area of Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan . Were the plankton picked up before launch, doubtless the extreme heat would have destroyed them. The ISS has been orbiting the earth since 1998 at an altitude of between 330 km / 205 mi and 435 km /270 mi It is clear that if they are first lifted from the sea into the atmosphere by rising air currents and winds, when those winds dissipate that the plankton carries on at their own steam as though drifting in the seas. The oceans have been here some 4,400 billion years, it must be posited that what ever means the plankton has used to make it into space onto the ISS, has been going on since that time. The unthinkable alternative is that the deeps, of space, is full of this life form, which of course will give the evolutionists new material, other than asteroids, with which to rework their theories of the seeding of life on earth.

</comment><comment><USER9> "He noted that it was not quite clear how these microscopic particles could have appeared on the surface of the space station."

Duh! Dolphins. It's like these people never read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Slime](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Slime)

</comment><comment><USER11> how is that possible?

<comment><USER12> Microorganisms are probably far less affected by vacuum than larger ones, as long as they can get some nutrients from time to time. And since most engines used in space produce plain water (and engines are fired frequently around the ISS), I think the only really difficult thing about the environment is radiation... and microorganisms might also be more resistant to this.

<comment><USER13> Tardigrades can endure some of the most extreme conditions, including the vacuum of space and solar radiation, and can go without food or water for more than 10 years: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade)

Not the same as plankton, but still quite interesting, I think!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Panspermia?

<comment><USER15> No. The ISS isn't really that far from earth and there's a lot of exchange going on between earth and the ISS, mostly from all the various spacecraft we send up.

<comment><USER16> I think they meant it the other way, from Earth outwards.

So if you find x living microbes at 200km from Earth, given thermal dispersion, shouldn't there be some y number of molecules from Earth on the Moon? (And so on)

Even if y is a really small number, it effectively means any one planet with life would most likely "pollute" the star system it finds itself in. (Would need to do the math on this, but I believe that was the commenter's point)

<comment><USER17> > So if you find x living microbes at 200km from Earth, given thermal > dispersion, shouldn't there be some y number of molecules from Earth on the > Moon?

I doubt it - even if the "uplifting air currents" hypothesis were proven true, there's a massive difference between low earth orbit and the moon. Around 8 km/s of delta-V to be exact.[1] This means that, to make it to the moon, the molecule not only has to reach LEO, it has to be moving at 8 km/s (a pretty insane speed) by the time it gets there. I can't imagine any earthly air current moving that fast, in fact it's likely impossible because the speed of sound is only 0.35 km/s.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth- Moon_spac...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth- Moon_space_.E2.80.94_low_thrust)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This reminds me of a little theory in microbiology, that is that every species exists in every place. For example, if you were to build an alkaline lake in the middle of nowhere (where no alkaline lakes exists), it wouldn't take long before specific species of bacteria would colonize that lake.

<comment><USER19> That sounds suspiciously like spontaneous generation - what is the actual theory?

<comment><USER18> Did some research as it seems people don't like it when you don't have citations.

A Dutch researcher named Baas Becker wrote in 1934 "Everything is everywhere, but the environment selects".</comment></comment></comment>


All this learning means nothing until you make something happen - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/confidence

<comment><USER2> This is good advice. One thing that has plagued me is that I procrastinate actual (personal) work with reading blogs/books. This isn't always a bad thing in that I am learning something, but it can severely set me back on projects.

This is why I now set goals for myself of what I want to finish each month. I enjoy learning and reading as much as possible, but I now set those aside to make my "deadlines" for whatever project of the month I have.

</comment><comment><USER3>
       Whether your confidence is naïve, inspired or crafted - you need its high-horsepower engine to get uphill and go anywhere.

you don't need horsepower to get uphill, you need torque

<comment><USER4> Horse power = force*distance/time. Torque is cross product(Force, radius vector to point of contact). For our purpose just force. Since horse power has a force component in it, it can be used interchangeably with toque for the above purposes. I cant imagine an engine with zero horse power capable of producing any torque.

<comment><USER3> if you are trying to go uphill, would you rather 200 horsepower and 200 torque or 200 horsepower and 140 torque

<comment><USER4> Notice we have a pedal in the car called acceleration. We do not have 2 pedals one saying "horse power" and one saying "torque".

Increasing the torque of an engine at a particular RPM is the same as increasing the power output at the same RPM. If you have experience with a stick shift, you notice that we shift to a lower gear to go uphill. We are simply changing the gear ratio. Now why do we do that? We want to make sure that all the hard work the engine is doing is transformed into something that moves us up the hill. If we do not lower the gear ratio, the tire will skid and some of that power will be transformed into heat and go useless (besides the real possibility of skidding into this side of the valley!) .

So we are not trading horse power for torque, rather we are making sure that we get all the power to convert into torque by using a low gear ratio. power --> torque ---> uphill. The thing that is causing the confusion is the low gear ratio, which has to do with Friction that the tire has with the road. Friction is the crucial component that transforms engine power capacity into torque. That's why we have treads in the tire. That is one of the reasons Army tanks and Bulldozers have continuous tracks, to increase friction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "I can't believe how foolish I was to start my first company. Just me in my bedroom with no experience, making a little website."

Just like Bob Moog in his basement, with no business experience, no business plan, no PR or HR department, no idea where he was headed, little idea of what happened before him, out in the middle of nowhere, tinkering his parts together, invited to conferences he'd never heard of, asking his customers what they wanted and actually listening.

If you're not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough.

</comment><comment><USER6> It bothers me that Derek conflates reading the advice of "business experts" with "learning". I think reading books like "What Got You Here Won't Get You There" should be considered entertainment through novel metaphors, not necessarily acquiring new knowledge, in the strict sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> So you're saying that reading is just entertainment, never learning?

Or are you just deciding in advance that all books about business are just worthless fluff?

Not sure what bad book you might have picked up in the past, but it seems your thinking is prejudiced.

We all get our learning where it gives us the greatest reward.

You chose Rutgers. (Was that just entertainment, not to be confused with learning?) The teachers/experts there are no better or worse than the teachers I've chosen, but might have been better for you or worse for me.

Some prefer hands-on experience. Some prefer classroom lectures and homework. Some prefer reading.

I like all three. I tend to get the biggest bang-per-buck reward from reading, but that's just me. No need to knock someone else's choice because it didn't work for you.

<comment><USER6> _Or are you just deciding in advance that all books about business are just worthless fluff?_

That's probably closest to what I think. "Worthless fluff" is a little harsh, but nearly every business book seems to be full of untested generalizations based on very limited/biased sample sizes. Influence, by Cialdini is one exception that comes to mind.

To really _learn_ something in the sense of creating a model that represents reality with a reasonable certainty takes an enormous amount of effort - several orders of magnitude more than effort than self-declared business experts put into their books.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Confidence in entrepreneurship is a delicate balance. You need the drive and determination to make things happen and overcome obstacles. On the other hand you can't have so much hubris that you ignore all input and refuse to adjust.

Sorry, but I think there's a flip side to this post that is missing. There is such thing as a "really bad idea". Combine that with all the other factors which are beyond your control and all the confidence in the world won't save you.

Humility is just as important as confidence IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Too much of either is dangerous! Too much confidence, and you think your shit doesn't stink. Too much humility and you think you're shit. :-)

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's confidence that makes you naive. I think that too much confidence may keep you from giving up when you should. You believe that no matter how many problems you're facing, you'll find a way to make it work. Inability to take criticism smacks more of arrogance than confidence in my mind, but maybe it's all semantics.

That being said, I agree with the parent. Humility is as important a trait as any, not matter your walk of life.

<comment><USER9> I tend to think it takes a lot of confidence to give up when you should, too.

You have to be confident enough to believe you'll have another idea next (either better, or easier to execute...).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's something to be said about being naive/foolish. I remember when I first started with this whole entrepreneurship thing. Since I had not seen the pitfalls and the realities of certain difficulties, I thought anything was possible. Finding that same level of foolish confidence mixed in with the occasional reality check can be a powerful thing. Stop looking at the impossibilities and all the common "this wont work because of x questions". This quote from notorious big always summed it up nicely for me:

"The key to staying, on top of things is treat everything like it's your first project, knahmsayin? Like it's your first day like back when you was an intern. Like, that's how you try to treat things like, just stay hungry."

<comment><USER11> Jobs said the same thing, but in that unmistakably his, much terser style. "Stay hungry, stay foolish."

Of course, not too literally: not as hungry and foolish as a savant hunting for prey. We're talking about markets, too. Observe the heavy brain lifting going on in entrepreneurship at the same time. One half of the entrepreneurs brain is, and needs to be hungry and foolish; the other so ruthlessly rational, perpetually self-scrutinizing, plus balancing and aligning private goals with public demand. All of this is neither literally the outcome of nor a requirement for "hungriness" or "foolishness".

<comment><USER12> Jobs was quoting the last issue of the Whole Earth Catalog. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA> starting at about 12:50.

<comment><USER11> Whoa, I forgot that and now remembered... thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A mixture of confidence, curiosity, knowledge, drive and a pinch of irrational exuberance all seem essential to become a successful entrepreneur, but luck cannot be overlooked as the defining factor of success. To the extent that one can create their own luck, are 10,000 hrs of practice more attributable to the necessary amount of effort required (on average) to create luck rather than the time required to create expertise - at least in the art/science of entrepreneurship?

</comment><comment><USER14> I love these types of posts, they remind me to close my HN browser window and get back to work on my startup :-) I love browsing the links and discussions on here, but sometimes I just have to get down to brass tacks and move my project ahead.

</comment><comment><USER15> the moment we accept something is impossible, it becomes so</comment>


What Kind of Name Is That? How to Name Fictional Characters - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/02/08/what-kind-of-name-is-that/ <comment><USER2> I read Brandon Sanderson's "Stormlight Archive" and "Mistborn" series, and I couldn't stop thinking about how awkward the names sounded, from Kaladin to Kelsier. It repeatedly took me out of the scene.

Meanwhile, the team behind Morrowind seemed to have an uncanny ability to produce names that just felt completely right. Somebody responded to my random thoughts on the topic with this very sound summary:

> _Morrowind 's names are a pretty remarkable achievement. I don't know who > was responsible for it but whoever it was did a really good job of ripping > off name "templates" from disparate languages, tweaking them enough to > retain their associations but not their meanings, and then sticking with > those templates across the board. Modeling the Ashlander names on Assyrian > was a stroke of world-building genius._

> _Mistborn 's names, in contrast, never seem to have much purpose behind > them. The templates are inconsistent and arbitrary, and convey no > information to the reader. You have fantastical gibberish like > vin/reen/camon, standard anglo names like dockson/hammond, bizarre nicknamey > nouns like breeze/clubs/spook, and cod-french like valette renoux. It's a > mess and it makes it difficult to figure out what this world is when there > doesn't seem to be any natural way those names could have emerged in one > culture. It's fucking weird._

> _That being said the only names I never liked in Morrowind were the Redguard > names. I could never figure out what they were supposed to be doing._

<comment><USER3> I am nearly finished with _The Way of Kings_. At first the names struck me as odd, but then again lots of stuff did. Giant crustaceans? People with foot- long eyebrows? Gem spheres used as both currency and lamps? Over time I got used to the names.

Actually, I remember one part where Sanderson describes how in the Vorinism religion symmetry is very important, and that the best names are symmetrical or almost symmetrical, like Shallan and Urithiru. I thought that was super creative!

<comment><USER4> I think _The Stormlight Archive_ should get a slight pass on the oddities of people, creatures and cultures. _The Stormlight Archive_ is aiming to be an epic that is established in a world of disparate cultures and fantastic creatures.

The idea is that culture is very centric to an area and its peoples. Once you leave that area, even if it's only 2 or 3 days by carriage, you transition to a distinct cultural shift. It's as if England and Japan were only separated by 100 miles, but you hit Egypt, Germany, Nigeria, Romania and Mexico along the way. Thus you get a large homogeneous population with their status quo and beliefs alongside markedly different people intermixed.

<comment><USER2> This is precisely why "Kaladin the Paladin" (he doesn't actually fit the archetype, but it's close) takes me out of it. It's not that it's too weird, it's that it's not weird enough.

Plus they call him "Kal". It's relying just as heavily as Morrowind was on pre-existing expectations, just different ones (worse ones, imo).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a practical consideration worth keeping in mind with names: they distinguish characters _from each other_.

I found One Hundred Years of Solitude virtually incomprehensible because it features an enormous cast of characters whose names are all similar.

There is José Arcadio Buendía, José Arcadio, Arcadio, Aureliano José, 17 (!) other characters named Aureliano, José Arcadio Segundo and José Arcadio (II) (who is _not_ Segundo).

Aureliano Buendía, Aureliano Segundo and Aureliano Babilonia (Aureliano II) (again, different dude from Segundo), and Aureliano (III).

Úrsula Iguarán, Amaranta Úrsula, and Amaranta.

Remedios Moscote, Remedios the Beauty, and Renata Remedios.

<comment><USER6> Oh God, you just reminded me. The first time I read Lord of the Rings (when I was a wee kiddie) I got Sauron and Saruman mixed up and for 90% of the book thought they were the same guy. It wasn't until they met I had that 'mind blown' moment.

<comment><USER7> Dude. Sauron and Saruman never met.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some of my favourite are the ship names in Ian Banks' culture series: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Cult...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series)

They're all great, but here are some examples

      * Only Slightly Bent
      * God Told Me To Do It
      * Ethics Gradient
      * I Blame My Mother
      * I Blame Your Mother
      * Poke It With A Stick
      * Don't Try This At Home
      * Contents May Differ

<comment><USER9> And on the other end of the spectrum, his drone and human names can be impenetrable. I can never keep them straight, even within a given book.

<comment><USER10> I can relate. I spent half of Player of Games just trying to internalize the pronunciation of Jernau Morat Gurgeh. That aside, great book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a writer, I live and die by this site : [http://www.behindthename.com/random/](http://www.behindthename.com/random/)

Pick an ethnicity and just hit random until something fits the character.

I usually don't use the exact name, but it puts me in the right neighborhood of what I want. After that I can tweak it.

<comment><USER12> I started out generating names out of whole cloth, but eventually, it just got easier to designate certain groups as using a certain ethnic set of names and roll away. I run through the list instead of picking random, though, because I like to imagine the people naming their children with intent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> 'Absurdonym' is my favorite new word. It will come in handy when discussing startup names.

</comment><comment><USER14> Thomas Pynchon is a great inventor of names. From "The Crying of Lot 49" alone, we have:

Oedipa Maas

Wendell "Mucho" Maas

John Nefastis

Stanley Koteks

Mike Fallopian

...and so forth. Granted, the humour in "Lot 49" is a little more juvenile than, say, "Against the Day".

<comment><USER15> He is indeed a brilliant namer. I love Reverend Cherrycoke from Mason & Dixon. It's so perfectly 18th century a name.

But if we're talking about The Crying of Lot 49 let's not forget Genghis Cohen, subject of a public spat at the time!

[http://dangerousminds.net/comments/thomas_pynchon_punctures_...](http://dangerousminds.net/comments/thomas_pynchon_punctures_preposterous_plagiarism_accusation_1966)

While Pynchon's smackdown is devastating, I can't help but feel that he would have written a better one in later years. Actually it would be better if he had simply stopped at "that is another problem entirely". "Perhaps more psychiatric than literary" is clever, but at that point he's bludgeoning.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for posting this. I had no idea this even happened. As you're surely aware, in 1966, Pynchon was still only 29 (an incredible fact, at least to me), so that might explain the lack of subtlety.

Another great namer was Mervyn Peake, author of the fabulous "Gormenghast" series. From it, we have:

Lord Sepulchrave Groan

Fuschia Groan

Titus Groan

Steerpike

Swelter, the enormous chef

Dr. Alfred Prunesquallor

Mr. Flay

...and too many more to mention. Any lovers of literary, surrealist grotesquerie should read this series.

<comment><USER15> Oh yeah, Peake was brilliant too. I always lump him in with Edward Gorey.

The best namer by far, I think, is Dickens, at least for the comic style of naming, which all these examples are. I wonder if it's harder to come up with names for sad things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I remember the introduction to Nightfall by Isaac Asimov, which explains (or perhaps defends) the familiar names of not just alien characters, but their measures and objects:

> Kalgash is an alien world and it is not our intention to have you think that > it is identical to Earth, even though we depict its people as speaking a > language that you can understand, and using terms that are familiar to you. > Those words should be understood as mere equivalents of alien terms-that is, > a conventional set of equivalents of the same sort that a writer of novels > uses when he has foreign characters speaking with each other in their own > language but nevertheless transcribes their words in the language of the > reader. So when the people of Kalgash speak of "miles," or "hands," or > "cars," or "computers," they mean their own units of distance, their own > grasping-organs, their own ground-transportation devices, their own > information-processing machines, etc. The computers used on Kalgash are not > necessarily compatible with the ones used in New York or London or > Stockholm, and the "mile" that we use in this book is not necessarily the > American unit of 5,280 feet. But it seemed simpler and more desirable to use > these familiar terms in describing events on this wholly alien world than it > would have been to invent a long series of wholly Kalgashian terms.

> In other words, we could have told you that one of our characters paused to > strap on his quonglishes before setting out on a walk of seven vorks along > the main gleebish of his native znoob, and everything might have seemed ever > so much more thoroughly alien. But it would also have been ever so much more > difficult to make sense out of what we were saying, and that did not seem > useful. The essence of this story doesn't lie in the quantity of bizarre > terms we might have invented; it lies, rather, in the reaction of a group of > people somewhat like ourselves, living on a world that is somewhat like ours > in all but one highly significant detail, as they react to a challenging > situation that is completely different from anything the people of Earth > have ever had to deal with. Under the circumstances, it seemed to us better > to tell you that someone put on his hiking boots before setting out on a > seven-mile walk than to clutter the book with quonglishes, vorks, and > gleebishes.

> If you prefer, you can imagine that the text reads "vorks" wherever it says > "miles," "gliizbiiz" wherever it says "hours," and "sleshtraps" where it > says "eyes." Or you can make up your own terms. Vorks or miles, it will make > no difference when the Stars come out.

... Granted, this only works because they never meet other characters whose "miles" or "gliizbiiz" need to be disambiguated.

<comment><USER17> I thought the "problem" with Nightfall is not that Asimov used "human" words instead of "Alien words", rather that there seemed to be almost one-to-one correspondence between the Earthly things and Kalgash. Kalgashians act exactly the same as humans on Earth(or rather 50s Earth) and have a concept of newspaper :)

> If you prefer, you can imagine that the text reads "vorks" wherever it says > "miles," "gliizbiiz" wherever it says "hours," and "sleshtraps" where it > says "eyes." Or you can make up your own terms. Vorks or miles, it will make > no difference when the Stars come out.

That reminds me of "How Things Are Made" from Rick and Morty:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMJk4y9NGvE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMJk4y9NGvE)

<comment><USER16> I thought it was a wonderful parody of the How It's Made videos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Despite its great reputation, I found "The Day of the Locust" unreadable because I couldn't move beyond a major character named Homer Simpson.

<comment><USER19> I had the same problem with Family Guy.

<comment><USER20> That's sort of the point of satire. Family guy isn't just making fun of current events and society, it's also making fun of it's source material and the way _it_ makes fun of current events. Peter is Homer taken to the extreme, such that when you question why Lois would stay with such an ass, you're forced to consider the lesser, but still relevant case of Marge staying with Homer (which to its credit the Simpsons have addressed a few times).

That said, Family guy really just used the template as a springboard, it's more about the absurdity of life and our culture than the Simpsons, which relies heavier on social commentary.

<comment><USER19> I dunno, i get family guy, but it's need to work for a reaction out of progressively more jaded audiences lost its lustre for me in the end.

When you're just nodding along to the commentary I suspect satire is largely wasted in a haze of confirmation bias.

Tl;dr family guy isn't funny anymore.

<comment><USER20> Ah, well that could definitely be the case. I haven't watched it in a few years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One of the things I like about Gene Wolfe's writing is that he doesn't make up words, and I believe that this extends to names as well. Severian, Vodalus, Palaemon, Thecla, Dorcas are all names used in Book of the New Sun that already exist in the historical record.

In Book of the Long Sun, at least in the city where the story takes place, the men are named for animals or animal products (Silk, Horn, Musk, Remora), the women for plants or plant products (Mint, Rose, Hyacinth, Mucor), and the androids for minerals or other non-living things (Marble, Hammerstone).

</comment><comment><USER22> Is this the right comment thread to talk about how bad names are in Star Wars, at least ever since... Episode II came out? And the names in the new trilogy so far sound worse than even in the prequels.

</comment><comment><USER23> It was good enough for Shakespeare. There's "Malvolio," the discontent from _Twelfth Night_. "Horatio," the even-tempered observer in _Hamlet_. "Elbow," the drunken constable in _Measure for Measure_ , and "Dull," the slow-witted constable from _Love 's Labors Lost_ (which also features the empty-headed schoolmaster "Holofernes"). "Prospero," the artist-magician who makes all right in the end of _The Tempest_. "Hotspur," the (actual) nickname of the irascible warrior from _Henry IV Part I_ who could think of nothing but riding his horse into battle. (Of course, that was a real historical name, but it's no wonder Shakespeare latched onto it.) And who can forget "Mercutio," another hothead, the short-lived hyperglot from _Romeo and Juilet_? Not to mention "Posthumus," who all but dies to set right his folly at the beginning of _Cymbeline_. And then of course, "Falstaff," also from _Henry IV_ , that great monument to the art of deception.

Does anyone need to guess the profession of Mistress Overdone, Mistress Quickly, or Doll Tearsheet?

Lesser characters: Shallow and Slender.

Not as sure what to make of Touchstone, Caliban (an anagram for "cannibal"?), and Bottom.

Dickens was just imitating, and in many ways bettering, his master.

<comment><USER24> Bottom...was an ass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I read a lot of scifi and have generally been impressed by the naming. I dislike Cratylic names when they're trite but authors like Phillip K. Dick and Gene Wolfe manage to pull them off. Neal Stephenson uses them humorously in Snowcrash (the protagonist's name is 'Hiro Protagonist'). I can't say I'm a fan of Asimov's names in the Foundation series - not Cratylic, just a bit off sounding. "Bayta Darrell" doesn't give the same brain-feeling as "Severian" or "Paul Atreides".

<comment><USER26> Whenever Asimov was stuck, he would make a play on meaning in his names:

Preem Palver => Prime (First) Palaver (Speaker).

Hari Seldon takes the name "Chetter Hummin" => Cheater Human.

Dors Venabili => Gift of the Venerable

Bel Riose is simply Belisarius.

Ebling Mis has bad health (it ebbs) and then he misses the right answer.

<comment><USER27> R. Daneel Olivaw was Chetter Hummin (and Eto Demerzel).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm curious as to whether or not parents put as much thought into naming their own children as authors do with their characters. I suppose not, because parents start with somewhat of a blank slate. Authors have to find a name that encompasses a fully developed character, even if they are fictional and will end up being less complex than a real person. It might be an interesting exercise to name yourself and your friends now, and see if you can think of a better name to suit them.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you're looking for realistic names, try the names of people you vaguely remember from highschool. Or ask your friends for the names they remember from their own highschool. Only works up to a poont, but something about each of these names is perfect. Often they're too silly to seem made up. Here's one: Chris DiJacklin. (If you're reading this, hi Chris!)

</comment><comment><USER30> When writing fiction, way back when, I'd just flip open a phone book, point, and run with it.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have a friend that's writing a book and has this very problem!

</comment><comment><USER15> Completely off topic, but the phrase "always an amusing resource for complex issues" contains the wittiest act of hyperlinking I've seen in a while.

<comment><USER32> Please stay on to... Oh. Well, carry on.

/me goes off to explore hyperlinking.

Why yes indeed, that is to ... um, um, _something_ for.</comment></comment>


Small asks first - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidgcohen.com/2010/10/28/small-asks-first/ <comment><USER2> Off-topic: I despise this use of the word 'ask' more than I could ever fully explain, common as it is. It's a 'request'. Even for business speak, this one is a particularly brutal torturing of the language.

Other than that, very helpful article.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was expecting an article about how people who ask instead of just taking end up "small"

<comment><USER4> And I was expecting an article about how in any transaction or relationship with a power differential it is the less powerful (smaller) party who makes the first request.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem with this is, at least from my perspective, is i hate people that pussyfoot around, if you want something, please just come out and say so.

A lot of the people that want to "build a relationship" are extremely annoying because of this, i dont want to build a relationship with you, if you just get down to doing something then a relationship just happens naturally.

<comment><USER6> This is relevant to your interests: [http://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats- the-middle-ground-betw...](http://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle- ground-between-FU-and-Welcome#830421)

Also, the article didn't seem to suggest pussy-footing to me - rather, it seems to suggest that if you don't know someone very well, it's rude to ask/demand them for a large investment of time in order to help you. Sending a short e-mail vs. asking for a phone call isn't pussy footing around, it actually sounds a lot more direct to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really easy to forget this stuff so thank you. When I feel the answer to my success lies with other people I tend to overask. When I am confident my success lies with me my perspiration andinspiration, and a little luck, then I'm less likely to over-reach a relationship.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't think it's just a function of time. 3-5 questions could easily take 30 minutes to answer. A phone call is just such a larger imposition than email (for many). No time to think a solid response through, research your answer, start after supper finish after the kids are asleep, etc.

Email lets the respondent control the conversation, rather than the requestor.

<comment><USER6> All in all, the problem is that it requires instant latency. You have to schedule a call, and be ready _then_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can we go back to the real world where "ask" is a verb? I had trouble getting through this. Isn't this sort of something we all learn growing up? I dunno, seems like "don't be pushy." Maybe the rubrik for small - huge is useful. Please stop using "ask" this way though. If it makes you feel better, I will be ok if you want to start every sentence with "so."</comment>


Paper Towels v. Air Dryers - <AUTHOR> http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/paper-towels-v-air-dryers.html

<comment><USER2> A point often neglected in such comparisons (regardless of the actual conclusion), is that paper towels are useful for more than just drying hands. What if I'm at a restaurant and I wish to wipe my trousers because I spilt a sauce on them? Or what if I just walked in from a walk and I want to wash and wipe my face? Or what if I just ate something oily and I wish to wipe that away (oil doesn't evaporate noticeably and will stick around until wiped away).</comment>