Georgia's secretary of state posts personal details of absentee voters online - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/07/georgia-secretary-of-state-brian-kemp-doxes-thousands-absentee-voters/ <comment><USER2> > _"State law requires the public availability of voter lists, including names > and address of registered voters," she said in an email._

> _It's little surprise that the way Kemp's office approached confirming > absentee ballots was met with anger. "While the data may already be public, > it is not publicly available in aggregate like this,"_

It's interesting how so many laws are predicated on limited resources. Ie, all names and addresses of registered voters should be publicly available, because we don't think anyone has the resources to manually request, retrieve and process all of that data.

Except that even in the old days, corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals did have the resources to do things that were out of reach to the common person. But because it's so rare, and because it's usually kept secret, no one knows or worries about the ramifications.

And then along comes technology and levels the playing field. Things that only the moneyed people could do previously, can now be done by anyone. And suddenly, people start to realize that's a huge problem.

Many people seem to think that the solution to such flare-ups is to introduce more friction, so that the average person can no longer afford to take advantage of the situation. Perhaps that's better than nothing, but it still leaves a loophole wide enough for megacorps and billionaires to take advantage of. Perhaps the real solution is to change the laws so that _no one_ can legally take advantage of these loopholes, no matter how much money or resources they have. Ie, it's better to fail-fast and fix the underlying bug, than to put up a bunch of hacks and fail silently.

<comment><USER3> We are also way more sensitive about our personal information than we used to be for some reason. When I was a boy, the local newspaper published the previous day's hospital admissions and discharges every day. At some point they stopped doing it, and now we have HIPAA which would probably result in huge fines for doing the same thing.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to remember, but the telephone book used to contain the street address for almost every adult by default.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but that was everyone and organized in alphabetical order.

This is organized by reason for not being at your ballot box.

Beyond that, it just seems sketchy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I worked at the polls in California for the first time this year. We were required to post a public list of everyone who voted including their address. It's posted on the outside of the polling place for anyone to review if they so choose.

The point of anonymous voting is to ensure that the voter's choices are secret, not to conceal the fact that someone voted. Even in Afghanistan where voting can cost your life, purple dye is placed on a finger to maintain a rudimentary system of tracking who has voted and who hasn't.

EDIT: Let me add, I'm no Kemp apologist, but let's keep the focus on the real failures that occurred in GA... Not exaggerated problems.

<comment><USER7> What I don't get is that the state tracks party affiliation and publishes it. This information should not be public or even better not tracked.

<comment><USER8> Not all states track a party affiliation (mine doesn't), but most of those that do do it to track voting in primaries.

<comment><USER9> I wish I understood why the state runs a primary election. That seems like it should be the responsibility of the party to decide who their nominee is. Should be their own rules, and cost

<comment><USER10> I agree that it makes sense in the abstract that ostensibly private organizations conduct themselves as they see fit. But in the U.S. the practical reality is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are _effectively_ official institutions. If voters' only input was to choose between two people secretly selected by these organizations, it wouldn't be very democratic. And imagine that happening in the many U.S. voting districts where the same party always wins - it would be completely undemocratic.

On the other hand, IIRC my history, before maybe the 1970s the U.S. parties did use more private processes, selecting candidates in the 'smoke-filled room' (the image is of fat old men smoking cigars and making deals). Some say the quality of candidate was better then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is nothing new. This kind of data has always been available in most states. As long ago as at least the mid-90s, I recall using large databases of every voter in a particular state when I was politically active and doing work for a party. It included name, address, phone number, party, registration date, and which elections they had participated in for the previous dozen years (at least). We had other data that was bumped against those records to give a fairly complete picture of over two million voters in that state. The other party had similar databases. I don't understand the outcry here, other than suddenly the data is available to anyone.

For what it's worth, not making it publicly available isn't really feasible either, since that would make fraud trivially easy for any resourceful and determined organization.

<comment><USER12> I subscribed to my state's monthly VRDB data dump for a few years. We Democrats were trying to better understand how and why voters were being purged. My Republican collaborators were using the same data to find fraudulent registrations.

Brian Kemp is a bad apple. But what he did here is unremarkable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am not sure that it can be considered doxxing if the personally identifying information is what used to be available in the phone book. Ma Bell was apparently doxxing us for decades before it was cool.

<comment><USER14> The phone book didn't tell you that someone was an absentee voter.

<comment><USER15> At least in my state, New Mexico, you can look that information up for any voter with just a name and birthday.

<comment><USER16> You can look up whether a voter in the state is casting an absentee ballot with just their name and birthday?

Gosh, if I were a criminal, there's an awful lot of homes that are likely candidates for robbing now that a list of "who is not home + their address" is public.

<comment><USER17> New Mexico doesn't require an excuse to vote with an absentee ballot¹.

Lots of states that do restrict them allow anyone over a certain age to use it.

So it doesn't really imply that they aren't home.

1\. [http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Voter_Information/Absentee_and_Ea...](http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Voter_Information/Absentee_and_Early_Voting.aspx)

<comment><USER16> Sure, but it is a much stronger indication that they are not home than just having a list of all registered voters in a state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't know at first glance if this is inappropriate. I do know at first glance that overseeing an election in which you are a candidate is a conflict of interest that should not happen.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you look on the website there's actually a form where you can download the information a 500Mb spreadsheet with 2.6 million rows, not just what was linked here.

I'm not sure if this is actually priveliged information? Voter rolls typically have some of this information and can be purchased by the general public as far as I understand.

<comment><USER20> The controversy appears to be that you have to agree to something restricting usage of the data when you purchase it, but if someone downloads a publicly- accessible file off of the Internet without some T&C up front, they probably won't assume that there are conditions to its use.

<comment><USER21> Here's the terms and conditions you'd ordinarily have to agree to: [https://georgiasecretaryofstate.net/pages/terms-and- conditio...](https://georgiasecretaryofstate.net/pages/terms-and-conditions)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just this Monday I sent email to 162,883 Floridians who had no record of having voted before: [https://enki.org/2018/11/07/encouraging-people-to- vote/](https://enki.org/2018/11/07/encouraging-people-to-vote/)

The Florida data set which I requested has the same kind of information about absentee votes and physical addresses.

I am wondering if this kind of data will become less public.

<comment><USER23> What an amazing project. Neat read!

<comment><USER22> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> From the perspective of an Australian where voting is compulsory and something like 98% of those eligible actually vote: it should have been a list of the people who DIDN'T vote with a wtf!

<comment><USER25> The fact that your country makes an even bigger mess of voting is no reason to gloat.

<comment><USER24> Please explain.

<comment><USER25> Compulsory voting is wrong for many reasons, it fixes a symptom (low voter turnout as a proxy for reduced participation) but not the cause (reduced participation due to a disconnect between politics and the voters).

Turnout by itself should not be a goal, but free and willing participation should be.

<comment><USER26> Actually, Australia's preferential voting & proportional representation do a far better job of connecting politics and voters than any country with a FPTP system (including US & Canada).

[https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP0708/08rp05)

<comment><USER25> It's not about what people do once they vote, it's about how to get people to vote.

Compulsory voting is great if you are running a dictatorship, it is not a good idea if you want to create a functioning democracy because voter turnout is an excellent way to judge how engaged people are. That signal is lost when you force people to vote.

Yes, proportional representation is better than first-past-the-post. But you can have that irrespective of how you get people to vote in the first place.

<comment><USER27> > Compulsory voting is great if you are running a dictatorship... That's a > ridiculous reach.

Not sure where you pulled that out from.

> That signal is lost when you force people to vote.

Many spoil votes on purpose. That's a signal.

You see voter turnout, I see voter suppression. I'd rather force everyone to the polls where they can _choose_ to say nothing, than have the powers that be potentially silence those that have nothing.

FFS, it's one day in your life. Make it a voting holiday. Create more voting centers. Make it easier to vote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Everyone used to have a printed telephone book with almost everyone's name and address. There are lots of public record search sites. Names and addresses are not hard to find. What's the big deal?

<comment><USER29> Privacy derangement syndrome is big now. People even question license plates.

<comment><USER30> The thing is, there's more than just a difference of scale if you can find out a bit of data about one specific person, or a handful of specific people, and if you can find out that bit of data about the majority of the people in a population. There's a difference between being able to find out specifically if Jo Doe is a member of group X, and being able to find out all the members of group X and noticing that Jo Doe is in that group.

People can be targetted - for advertising, for harassment, for enhanced surveillance - if public information is available in the aggregate, in ways that they cannot be targetted if the information is not.

There are some types of data about individuals, where it is in the public interest for that data to be available, but it also represents an invasion of privacy if it is. So the public benefits have to be weighed against the potential for harm. The thing is, the potential for harm changes depending on "how available" the data is. If the decision on whether to make data public was made in a time where getting individual pieces of data was time-consuming and inconvenient, and getting data in the aggregate was near-impossible, then if the data suddenly becomes available in the aggregate to anyone with a passing interest in obtaining it, the trade-off that was made to determine whether the data should have been made public is no longer valid.

So saying that something is "public information" is... tricky. There are cases where we should look back at the trade-offs we made, and re-evaluate them in the light of the technology that is now available to the average person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The state of Washington publishes the entire voter roll, complete with names, addresses, and dates of birth, online in CSV format.

[https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/vrdb- current.zip](https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/vrdb-current.zip)

</comment><comment><USER32> Okay but if this shows the reason for absentee voting does this leak sensitive health information? Name and address whatever, but if you have a physical impairment then is this now public record? Has anyone looked through the list?

</comment><comment><USER33> Voter records are public. Even the absentee lists are made public 1-2 day after the vote. They'll be doxxed regardless.

</comment><comment><USER34> As long as this data release honours requests to keep names and addresses silent, I see no problem with it. You already register to vote, that information is publicly available. The assumption that it's inconvenient to uncover is false: that's security through assumed laziness.

The moment this crosses the line and people start publishing the names and addresses of people who have asked that their details remain unpublished, that should be a crime. Doing so exposes vulnerable people to harassment and death, often at the hands of domestic abusers or drug gangs they've been trying to escape.

</comment><comment><USER35> Meanwhile, on Monday

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/apps- public-v...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/apps-public- voting-record.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> _> "Releasing this data in aggregate could be seen as suppressing future absentee voters in Georgia who do not want their information released in this manner," he said._

This was my immediate conclusion. What a transparently detestable move.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is a red herring. Yellow books have existed for decades with peoples name and addresses. Not taking a stance on the doxxing but the real problem with what's happening in Georgia is the fact that the election is straight up rigged like a banana republic. Techcrunch spends literally half a sentence on this issue in the entire article:

"Kemp, who as secretary of state effectively runs the state's elections despite running in one, has been accused of voter suppression in recent weeks, "

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY2ZeqdRjjc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY2ZeqdRjjc)

</comment><comment><USER38> Rich, coming from this man: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the- cyb...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the- cybersecurity-202/2018/11/05/the-cybersecurity-202-brian-kemp-s-hacking- allegations-highlight-the-challenges-of-preserving-voter- confidence/5bdf1c0b1b326b39290545ba/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Look what some others are doing with this publicly available information:

[https://freebeacon.com/politics/dems-warn-multiple-states- we...](https://freebeacon.com/politics/dems-warn-multiple-states-well-know- dont-vote-will-neighbors/)

<comment><USER40> _This_ publicly available information is an excel spreadsheet with names and addresses of absentee voters in the midterm.

The article mentions two specific dangers about absentee voter lists: targeting unoccupied properties and-- related-- discouraging the absentee vote on the next election. That and the lack of ToS meant that posting this list was a bad idea.

I followed your link but didn't find any examples of wrongly posting gratis downloadable absentee lists. Instead I read examples of problems with Democrats attempting to shame people into voting based on publicly available (though not gratis downloadable) data.

That is a different issue than giving the public immediate access to absentee voting lists the day after an election. We don't need links vigilantly posted from "the other side" about a different issue to remind us that people do bad things all across the political spectrum. Please save them for a time when a poster claims that Democrats take data protection much more seriously than this. (I.e., please don't ever post them.)

<comment><USER12> _"...targeting unoccupied properties..."_

This is why I could never be a criminal. I would have never thought of that exploit. It sometimes scares me how clever and resourceful some people can be.

<comment><USER41> Just because someone used an absentee ballot doesn't mean the address is unoccupied. I used my parents address in college and I know people who used it because they were traveling Election Day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Lots of odd and suspicious things have been happening around Georgia elections.

See [https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/georgia-6-and-the-voting- mach...](https://medium.com/@jennycohn1/georgia-6-and-the-voting-machine- vendors-87278fdb0cdf)

</comment><comment><USER43> Maybe they can have the new secretary of state run another election for governor?

</comment><comment><USER44> If it was a sane country, he'd be in jail for all that voter suppression he's done and also this!

</comment><comment><USER45> I see no problem with this. It's public data. If you don't like it, change the law.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's insane that the person running the election commission can run in the election.

</comment><comment><USER47> If any sort of monitors were looking at this election it wouldn't be considered legitimate.

Brian Kemp should be in jail for his actions. Actually he never should have been in a position to take these actions. Instead he's going to be governor with no opposition.

</comment><comment><USER48> Whilst legally it may not be wrong. Morally, it's a dangerous path as what good do they expect to come from this by aggregating the data into packaged up form that enables joe public of all forms, easy access.

It is in effect, tarring all these people with a brush that is an edge-case scenario and that would be voter fraud.

Guilty until proven innocent in the social media age has become the norm alas.

<comment><USER15> How is this tarring people? For voting?

<comment><USER49> In fairness, black folks in the South have legitimate reasons to be a bit leery of a public "here's who voted" list. Plenty alive today were alive during Jim Crow.

<comment><USER50> No, they _had_ legitimate reasons many years ago. There is no such legitimate fear these days.

<comment><USER51> Far-right white supremacist militia groups specifically threatened to use force if Georgia's black female Governor candidate won the election.

Also, the law enforcement community does recognize such far-right extremists as a legitimate threat.

[https://www.thedailybeast.com/militia-threatens-enemies- like...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/militia-threatens-enemies-like-stacey- abrams-in-violent-video)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI- charlottesvi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/magazine/FBI- charlottesville-white-nationalism-far-right.html)

<comment><USER50> Threatening a person(the possible governor) is different than threatening the entire black population. If white supremacists wanted to just kill random black people, they don't need a voter roll for that. If they wanted to kill just black people who voted for Abrams, the voter roll doesn't tell them that. If they wanted to kill anyone who would vote for Abrams, then expressing your support for her on facebook seems far more dangerous than actually casting a secret ballot.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to tell your significant other you are starting a company - <AUTHOR> https://unsupervisedmethods.com/11-ways-to-tell-your-significant-other-you-are-starting-a-company-3ac962a35b27#hn <comment><AUTHOR> Am I missing any?</comment>


Framework Benchmarks Round 7 - <AUTHOR> http://www.techempower.com/blog/2013/10/31/framework-benchmarks-round-7/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the latest round of our project where we exercise the performance of fundamental operations in a wide variety of web application frameworks and platforms. This project started in March with about 20 frameworks and since then, the community has contributed three times as many.

Round 7 was long delayed but we hope to iterate the rounds on a monthly basis in the future.

We'd love to hear your questions, thoughts, or criticisms. And thanks to everyone who has participated!

</comment><comment><USER2> rails is slow, again. but everybody knows, you are happy, but your wallet is not :)</comment>


Exposed: Apple's Terrible Sin in China [video] - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/31/exposed-apples-terrible-sin-in-china-tctv/

<comment><USER2> Why is only one company singled out when there are a number that use foxconn?

<comment><USER3> Why is it okay to do bad things if others do it too?</comment></comment>


British Airways frequent-flyer accounts hacked - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/29/british-airways-frequent-flyer-accounts-hacked

<comment><USER2> I'm affected. Their e-mail to customers said "We understand this was login information relating to a different online service which you may have also used to access your Executive Club account."

That sounds like victim-blaming: I didn't use the same username or password anywhere else on the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER3> official notice is here: [https://ukprepin.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5249/~...](https://ukprepin.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5249/~/unauthorised- activity-to-executive-club-accounts)

I know some services have access to frequent flyer accounts so you can track points / bookings / etc - TripIt is one such service.

I really don't like how they have detected the activity but aren't informing customers what external service is affected. No other service has indicated an issue publicly (e.g. TripIt) so now I have to assume a bunch of services are affected.</comment>


A Product Design Question a Day: Introducing Tavern - <AUTHOR> http://zurb.com/article/1327/a-product-design-question-a-day-introduci

<comment><USER2> I have yet to actually see Tavern, but I doubt I'll find it all that useful.

What made Forrst so awesome (early on at least) was how easy it was to get feedback on your personal work. The site's guidelines and standards required a lot of upkeep by Kyle (Forrst's founder), but in turn enabled the growth of a community of learners and teachers. As the individuals learned and grew, so did the community.

Unfortunately, keeping those incentives aligned proved to be too difficult to sustain. After Kyle left, Forrst slowly evolved into a platform for experienced designers to simply promote their work. The more inexperienced members stopped receiving feedback because nobody saw their posts, and in turn people stopped even posting unless they had an ulterior motive (e.g. go view my portfolio, or download this freebie and promote my work).

Zurb correctly recognized that the "Dribblification" of Forrst led to its downfall, but Tavern essentially ignores the original problem. The problem wasn't that we needed help answering the big questions (like "are designers too isolated from the consequences of their work"), but that we all wanted help with the small, day-to-day questions (like "how do I improve the layout on this page" or "what color should this be"). The focus wasn't on the _industry_ growth, but on the _personal_ growth.

Of course, the bigger industry questions and trends naturally grew from the sum of the community's posts and responses. Meta-questions were fun when they came up, but they were only popular because there was an existing community there to read them. They certainly weren't the focus of the site, and I'm not convinced they'll be enough to sustain this new version.

</comment><comment><USER3> I love Zurb but this is dangerous in a not-so-great-for-design sort of way: "Make a statement with your design opinion." Everything is becoming about someone else's opinion as opposed to actually solving a design problem. Honestly, I don't care about Joe Smith's _opinion_ as much as I do about his feedback on the _solution_.

We should be looking to get to: "Does this effectively communicate the value of Product A. If not, what's unclear for you? Can you give a use case where this solution might fail with a certain group of users?" The feedback I get from a question like that should present objective advice, not a subjective opinion.

Looking at the homepage for Tavern, I see a fairly meaningless question in the example screenshot: "UX designer, UI designer, or Product Designer – do titles really matter?" That's a boatload of navel gazing. Debating professional titles is not a design problem. It's training young designers to wax poetic about their meaning as opposed to teaching them how to improve their craft and help others.

I don't say any of this to be mean or to look down upon the efforts of Zurb. They're a really brilliant group of people. But this is a murky path to head down in respect to turning people into better designers. I really hope the actual product will offer up more meaningful conversation.

<comment><USER2> > That's a boatload of navel gazing.

I had to chuckle, but that's a good way of putting it. Does the design community really need more introspection? My answer would be a resounding 'No', but maybe Zurb feels differently.

Regardless, Tavern is far from what Forrst once was. I'm glad they're at least changing the name, but I fail to understand why they're even associating the two products, aside from the fact that one is launching at the same time the other is being shuttered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's the advantage of only letting in 100 people at a time instead of making it publicly available? Personally, I'm not inclined to give you my email address without at least some sample content.

<comment><USER5> The private release is a chance to get feedback from the community so we can refine Tavern before we release it fully in the wild. There's some sample content highlighted on this page: [http://zurb.com/tavern](http://zurb.com/tavern)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Really excited to see the full release!</comment>


Why College Shouldn't Take Four Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/id/218183

<comment><USER3> I think the most amazing thing about this article is that it was written (or at least bylined) by a sitting senator. I don't agree with many of Sen. Alexander's political positions generally, but wow! That's a policy paper right there and a rare thing for a politician to do, generally. Basically, this piece seems intended to 'pull' the average student back towards a four- year average by giving them opportunities to graduate early. However, I feel it doesn't actually incentivize them to graduate unless they're already driven to do so.

@yummyfajitas, tokenadult, It would definitely be interesting to graduate in three years, but I think the better option is to regear the fourth year as a transition year, with few classes and geared towards internships, externships, coops, and on-campus research. It should propel you to grad school, your vocation, or even give you a chance to meet co-founders and enter startupdom.

<comment><USER4> Instead of graduating in 3 years and getting work experience in the 4'th year, students should stay in school and get work experience (*ternship, coop, research) in the 4'th year?

Apart from being an opportunity for the college to take an "internship fee", "computer fee", "student activities fee", "PIRG fee", etc, what purpose does this serve that 3 year graduation would not?

<comment><USER5> It gives the student an opportunity to get a taste of the working world before making their first major professional decision. That, to me, is worthwhile.

<comment><USER4> What makes the 4'th year internship a "taste" while the first job is a "major professional decision"? Is it simply because the label "internship" will make it socially acceptable to quit and do something else?

<comment><USER5> Pretty much. An internship is structured to be time-limited, so there's a natural stopping point to re-assess (on both sides). First jobs don't have that.

Consider law and business students who typically do summer internships. Many end up working for their internship employer, but many do not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It doesn't have to be this way. I've looked at the French university system and it makes sense. Unfortunately, with the Barcelona agreement, they are switching from the pretty decent system they have to the anglo-saxon model.

If you are unfamiliar you are given a license? for each year you complete. So you would receive Bac+1, Bac+2, and a Bac+3 is the equivalent of bachelors. Employers specify how much time and which degrees they are looking for when you apply for work. I've seen some only require a Bac+1 and a few want a Bac+3.

This is completely unlike the US model where if you are 1 or 2 semesters away from receiving a degree (I'm sure some of you have a few friends like this) you are only a highschool graduate no matter how much time you've invested at the university.

Also, I'm a 6-year grad, 1 was working, 1 was cooping, 4 were actual university time. My final year was a straight year (May-May) of school. It was hard, physically, because during the summers my school tried to cram an entire semester (4 months) into 4 weeks. While this looked doable on paper you end up chewing through a lot of material, disregarding it, and then repeat the following week. I remember nothing from my summer courses.

If your schedule didn't mesh perfectly with the courses then you might have to wait a year until a required course becomes available again. I pushed, shoved and begged my way into every class my final year. Because I wasn't an athlete or honor student I had to wait for enrollment. This wasn't my timeline, just the realities of the university system. Knowing that I would be kicking around campus until spring made me desperate.

Universities have been kicking around the 3 year degree for years and decades. Until they, fundamentally, change how courses are distributed, how schedules are dictated this thing doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of gaining any traction. I've heard the same thing for years, 3 years means less pressure on classes, less cost, and the continuous use (no breaks) of knowledge. But the reality is whether you do it during the fall or the spring, the costs are still the same. Comparatively, it's more expensive since summer courses usually max out at 12 credit hours while a normal semester can go to 18 at the same price. Fewer courses are offered, during the summer and the ones that are available are generally freshman, sophomore courses. If you are an upperclassman there is very little for you except a few uni requirements.

College shouldn't take 3 or 4 years. It should be a continuous thing with clearly defined goals. That way someone shouldn't have to be on the line for a 4 year degree. If they happen to find a job that only needs 2 or 3, instead of the nebulouse "some college", then they should feel confident in applying because the employer can gauge their level of education fairly.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think the best way to improve college would be to ban the practice of granting degrees altogether.

</comment><comment><USER8> College shouldn't take four years, but it shouldn't take three years either.

Everyone works differently, and everyone has a different rythm. Some people know what they want to do for the rest of their lives at 13, some don't know into their twenties. Everyone should be able to adapt their college experience to their own needs and wants.

<comment><USER4> _Some people know what they want to do for the rest of their lives at 13, some don't know into their twenties._

In general, when considering a big ticket (e.g. $100,000) purchase, I usually wait until I know what I want to buy before writing a check. Maybe these twenty-somethings should do the same.

<comment><USER9> I think there is too much pressure for a lot of high school graduates to immediately attend college for this to be feasible. A lot of people spending $100k+ on tuition probably spent at least half that on their high school tuition, so the whole "oh just wait until you're ready" thing doesn't really hold water for the parents that are paying the bills.

The real problem, I think, for these students is not in their inability to choose a major (since the large majority of them choose something), but in their lack of experience to provide them a basis for understanding what they are really interested in combined with external pressures regarding what are acceptable fields to pursue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I got hired away from college and in some ways I still kind of regret not finishing. I'm glad that in my career, you don't really need a degree to succeed. A lot of my peers are degree-less, but having at least a Bachelor's does seem to give people an edge in the hiring process. For that, I usually blame HR.

I did complete 4 years of high school in 3 years, though, by hitting college classes at night for high school credit, taking one or two credit classes through the school district each summer and by limiting the number of non- credit or decreased-credit school-day options such as study hall or teacher aide. I do wish that it was as easy to buck the college system. Usually, though, pre-reqs are structured so you have to push though no fewer than eight semesters in order to accomplish everything to get your Bachelor's.

<comment><USER11> I've found that you can often skip prerequisites if you just don't tell anybody you didn't take the required classes. If I had done things properly, I wouldn't have been able to take most of the classes I really enjoyed.

<comment><USER12> Maybe way back when they didn't really use computer systems to track classes. Now if you don't have the prereqs in the computer system, the computer wont let your register, therefore the teacher wont have you on your class list and you wont be able to get a grade on your transcript.

<comment><USER11> I just graduated from college a few months ago. The prerequisite system is so full of special cases, and so riddled with verbiage like "or equivalent classes, or permission of the instructor", that they didn't even bother to track prereqs by computer. (Also, I spent a semester in another country, and the records didn't transfer. Essentially, that semester was a black box in which I could plausibly be assumed to have taken any class. Maybe that helped.)

I'm surprised that other schools track prereqs by computer. That sounds like it would be very rigid and high-maintenance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My law school friends bemoaned the fact that it is literally impossible to finish law school in anything less than 3 years because the governing board makes it unfeasible (basically milking the future lawyers for an extra year of tuition (talk about ethics), ridiculous class scheduling)

<comment><AUTHOR> Undergraduate major sequences can work that way too. Depending on how frequently classes are offered, and with what other conflicts with other classes, it can be impossible to complete a major sequence in less than four years from college entry even for a student who has advanced courses in the major and a year or more of AP credit upon college entrance. Some colleges make that four-year experience worthwhile, but at other colleges that is mostly marking time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first thing we should do before reforming college is to decide what our goals are. Then we should figure out how to achieve them.

Unfortunately, most stated reasons for college/education in general serve as justification for the existing system.

<comment><AUTHOR> _most stated reasons for college/education in general serve as justification for the existing system._

That sounds right to me. What would you suggest as reasonable goals for after- high-school schooling that would make for a better system?

<comment><USER14> I agree with the grandparent post. We need to define why college exists in the modern system.

In the more distant past, it was purely academic. Research, experimentation, etc. Somewhere in the last century the goal of schools shifted to be an unfocused trade school. "Learn to write well, every job needs that!".

I'm not opposed to either approach, and believe that both need to exist in the world. But the idea of a 4 year college falls awkwardly in between those two ideas.

I think the reason we are in this situation is because we confused cause and effect. Back when college was a much more limited institution, the smartest and best connected went to school. They then got the best jobs, and earned more money. People saw that and said "Aha! College leads to better jobs". What they missed was the "Aha! Smart people get the best jobs!". So the push to get everybody into college started, since it would guarantee the student's financial future. That of course hasn't been sustainable, and it has ruined the bachelor's degree as a useful resume signal that you are part of that top tier of people.

We need to reevaluate how important exclusivity is to universities, reevaluate how kids can be trained for high end jobs (can you do a trade school for computer programming?). It may be as simple as a marketing campaign saying that plumbers and mechanics can't be outsourced and make a ton of money.

<comment><USER6> It was also pushed along by the Vietnam war. Kids didn't want to be drafted, and a lot of teachers didn't want to see their brightest as gun fodder. The only way to get around the draft was to get into college. Thus began that sneaky grade inflation problem that all highschools and colleges swear doesn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One of the downsides of taking less time to graduate is requiring earlier decisions. Many students don't graduate with their major unchanged from what they thought it at the time they matriculated. Personally, by the time my freshman year was over, I had taken only three courses total in what would become my two majors (math and computer science), and one didn't count (C.S. for non-majors). I had no idea what I wanted to major in when I went to college. I needed that time to decide. Of course, moving one year of college into summers would make for the same amount of work each semester, but temporally compressed, at the cost of removing all your intra-college summers. No summer internships, no summer jobs. That means you can't go work for google; you can't work for Fog Creek. You can get an internship during school, but that won't be full-time; just a day or two a week. For many students, they'll be away from their families for most of those three years, which would consist of nearly-constant work.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've always thought that even after four years, that really is just barely enough time to get decent awareness around developing software. Assuming you were a CS major the whole time.

The only thing worse than being bad at what you do is being bad at it and not knowing it.

<comment><USER17> the decent programmers I've worked with all have a passion for software and learned it informally. Uni is notoriously bad at training software engineers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The CEGEP system in Quebec is quite good. 3 years High School , 2 years CEGEP (sort of like community college), and then 3 years university for a bachelors. Foreign students like I was do a year 0 (they really call it that, at least at McGill) at a university, and then meet the Quebec students in our major the next year.

So like the French system, there are more chances to get off the train and have a useful credential, plus many students do the freshman year close to home for less money.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm 57+ and it has taken me since 1999 to get my AA and I still have to make it another 2+ years to get my BA. I work to make ends meet I support a disabled mother, husband and grandson...........I want my Masters and I'll take the time it takes to get it. Psychology is not a simple study and these morons want us to do our degrees in 3 years with 40 units per year........I still take 24 and I still don't get a full night sleep........be real PLEASE!

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes, let's bleed an extra cube-farm year out of every serf.

</comment><comment><USER21> World University rankings for 2008 - [http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world- uni...](http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university- rankings/2009/results)

Seems the US does indeed have a lot of the top-ranking universities up there

</comment><comment><USER3> A basic round up of webtalk about this subject: [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Pros- an...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Pros-and-Cons-of- Blitzing-Through-College-1333)

</comment><comment><USER17> You guys talk about undergrad like you're there for the education. Hackers, moreso than 'normal' people, need college to develop social skills and other soft subjects. Grad school is for real learning.

</comment><comment><USER22> Shouldn't your major play a factor in how many years it takes?

</comment><comment><USER23> It probably shouldn't, however colleges have a monetary incentive to extend your duration as a student.

<comment><USER24> As I work at a good sized institution I gotta disagree. The effect I actually see is that students who spend more time at our university take up disproportional resources and end up costing the university money - <USER2> students who take >4 years typically fill up required courses then drop out - the courses aren't filled efficiently. There are many other reasons as well for a University to want "graduate in 4", but that's the first ones to come to mind.

It's a major program here and the administration has been researching and passing new tuition policies. You can read a report done by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning here at KU: <http://www2.ku.edu/~oirp/GIF/GIF_TaskForceReport_090205.pdf>

<comment><USER23> I'll take your data over my anecdotes anytime ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> College doesn't take four years now. I finished in 3. AP credit from high school, 2 summer sessions, and a few extra courses was all it took.

Anyone ambitious enough can do it. The first thing to do is stop thinking like the crowd.

Default thinking is for most people, but not everyone. I suspect most people here already know that.

<comment><AUTHOR> What was your major? Can any entering freshman with no previous courses in the major department finish in three years? (That was barely possible for my major at my alma mater, back in the 1970s.)

Were you working to pay your bills while going to college? That makes a difference for a lot of students too.

Props to you for doing something besides the default.

<comment><USER23> It depends if you're willing to take classes over the summer as well, it's certainly possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Willingness to take classes during the summer can be constrained by the necessity of working for expenses during the summer.

<comment><USER26> Also by what classes are offered during the summer. In the computer science departments I've been in, junior and senior level classes aren't offered during the summer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As usual, they are trying to fix government meddling with austerity measures. As usual, it will not work.

"Meanwhile, tuition has soared, leaving graduating students with unprecedented loan debt."

Because the government subsidized interest rates and abolished underwriting standards. The latter was done by making it impossible to write off student loan debt in bankruptcy, meaning lenders could give a student loan to anyone with a pulse and still write it down as an asset on their books. Higher education is just another part of the monetary bubble.

"Because of the recession, Harvard is laying off workers and Stanford is selling a billion dollars of its endowment."

No, that's because their money managers stashed the grocery money in derivatives, turning a liquidity crunch into an insolvency crisis. (And thus answering the question of whether the MBA and quant muppets were trained to be thieves or trained to be idiots.)</comment>


Do you use FriendFeed? - <AUTHOR>

Are you using FriendFeed? I admit that I follow a few users here at HN and I am very interested in their opinions, ideas....HN is where we submit the most interesting items we find on the net, some other items we do not because we may feel as if it may not appeal to the crowd for whatever reason. I am interested in reading the other items that fall in your RSS feed and that you are not posting here. FriendFeed is a good place to do so. So if you are using FF, and you do not mind sharing your feed, please do. Thank you all. <comment><USER2> Yes :)

<http://friendfeed.com/paul>

<comment><USER3> Showoff :)

Btw, its great dude, kudos

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes, I do.

There is a list of rooms here: <http://blogoscoped.com/friendfeed/rooms>

Instead of placing a link to all my web accounts eg, Digg, YouTube etc, I can just share my friendfeed account URL. It also incorporates digg comments into my feed. I can now take control of my scattered web actitivies.

It has a lot of potential with just a few tweaks here and there.

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't help but think of Twitter every time someone mentions FriendFeed. I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying this, but FriendFeed now is exactly how Twitter was at the time of the SxSW rage. Everyone who wasn't using it "didn't know what they were missing" and it was going to be "the greatest thing since sliced email" and whatnot... Flash forward just several months, and the fad is over. These things can't sustain themselves, they take too much work, they're huge timesinks, and they have no real & tangible long- term benefits for their users. They may be fun at first, but as soon as the novelty wears off the number of users will also drop - as will he number of hard-core users that can't hear the service's name without wetting their pants in excitement.

<comment><USER4> FriendFeed has surpassed Twitter in that I can change my status in GTalk or place a message in the FriendFeed and it is like writing a tweet.

How much innovation has Twitter done? FF can absorb that functionality so easily...

<comment><USER6> You totally missed the point. The functionality it can absorb is useless, it doesn't matter who absorbs it.

<comment><USER4> There is obviously demand to write 'tweets' and always will be. So long as FriendFeeder and similar sites can role that functionality into it, then Twitter doesn't have much of a competitive advantage, that's all I am saying. That's my point.

Twitter has a developer community writing to its API, but those innovations come from outsiders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> its nice webapp where you get to know what _serious_ people are reading or sharing. Like digg but far wider in scope. Comment troll is noise there

Most of the times I stumble on good site/article and really really nice pictures from flickr

and yes its unlike twitter. Twitter is like IM and you are allowed to communicate through status message. Its hip but how useful?

<comment><USER8> We have a room there for life scientists that's ended up being one of the best sources of info out there. None of us have ever found any use for Digg (and to a lesser extent Reddit). The best part, people really not into Twitter, etc have joined up. It's like a hybrid between a newsgroup and IRC but with a slicker, easier interface.

And yes, Twitter is a totally different beast and that's a good thing

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> FF ID posted here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=172345>

<comment><AUTHOR> Very helpful. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes - <http://friendfeed.com/raygrieselhuber>

</comment><comment><USER11> <http://friendfeed.com/kfischer>

</comment><comment><USER12> No

<comment><USER6> I find it pretty humorous when Scoble gets a hard on every time he's able to bring up FriendFeed.

Plus, the site is REALLY ugly. Like, really, really, really ugly.

<comment><USER13> You can clean up ff to make your eyes not want to explode with userstyles

[http://friendfeed.com/e/db892745-dd31-45fa-a197-83146025f8c3...](http://friendfeed.com/e/db892745-dd31-45fa-a197-83146025f8c3/Make- friendfeed-a-little-easier-on-your-eyes-with/)

<comment><USER6> I really shouldn't have to. That doesn't look like it would do much anyway. The site has no structure, the logo is stupid, and the default user icons are ugly.

More importantly though, I'm not into the functionality it offers.

<comment><USER14> I think this is an important point. We tend to view useless things(at least to ourselves) as ugly.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily, I think Twitter looks great ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yeah I do, and you can follow the man himself at <http://friendfeed.com/metatronscube> :P

</comment><comment><USER16> I do as well. I really think it's the best of the social media programs out there - particularly since twitter stopped working. FF is also evolving frequently, yesterday they added multiple admins to rooms as an example (much like a cosys or admin on irc). If you haven't given it a chance, I recommend you do. BTW I'm at <http://friendfeed.com/pbrush>

</comment><comment><USER17> <http://friendfeed.com/brlewis>

But if it's hacker or startup news I post it on news.yc.

</comment><comment><USER18> <http://friendfeed.com/16thletter>

</comment><comment><USER19> <http://friendfeed.com/uglychart>

</comment><comment><USER20> <http://friendfeed.com/metajack>

</comment><comment><USER21> Yes, <http://friendfeed.com/trev>

</comment><comment><USER22> <http://friendfeed.com/nikpay>

</comment><comment><USER23> Nope. I use <http://talkaboutadate.com/about/greg>. It just might get me a date. ;)

</comment><comment><USER14> <http://friendfeed.com/angol>

</comment><comment><USER24> Yes, and I relly like it.

</comment><comment><USER25> <http://friendfeed.com/nickhac>

</comment><comment><USER25> I love friend feed :)</comment>


Stop telling us how much everything sucks - <AUTHOR> http://www.elezea.com/2012/12/maybe-it-doesnt-suck/

<comment><USER2> The reason people don't give much constructive criticism any more is, in my opinion, largely down to a set of pervasive, poisonous attitudes which affect the tech industry:

1: 'Ship early, ship often' is better than 'take your time and get it right'.

People need to release what they've got because _GASP_ , somebody else might get there first! People falsely believe that the market decides based on speed to delivery, rather than overall quality. Investors might, but customers do not. There are a lot of sucky projects out there, regardless of the specific reasons WHY they suck. People don't have the time or inclination to actually provide useful criticisms, but they do feel the need to voice their disdain.

2: Everyone's a rock-star.

If everyone's a rock-star, nobody's a rock-star. The blogosphere is full of high profile developers and tech evangelists telling everyone how great we all are and how those stuffy 'management' types don't know what they're talking about. The developer is the guru, the shaman, the expert. Well, that's just wishful thinking. If you think you're a genius, you're probably not a genius. You don't have the credentials, the experience or expertise to effectively critique somebody else's project, so you dismiss it as 'it sucks' because you don't know how to articulate the issues you have with it.

3: Everyone's opinion is valid.

This is basically a reiteration of point 2, but I think this is an issue with Western civilisation as a whole. The ease with which people can now publicise their opinions means that people WILL publicise their opinions. There is too much noise, because people think that their opinions are valid and useful. Hell, I'm doing it right now!

</comment><comment><USER3> I think I generally agree with this (though I do it myself more than I'd like). I think the sentiment of just declaring something (or, more often, someone) 'sucks' is a bit immature, and it's almost always unconstructive. I was listening to the Kalzumeus podcast the other day, and they were talking about this very thing on the last show they did. I can't remember what they called it, but it was something like 'Be curious' instead of 'be critical'. He had an acronym, but it didn't stick with me. Anyway, the long and short of it was, instead of saying something like "this is just a pile of ass", ask the question of why it might be the way it is - there are probably good reasons.

Actually, the Kalzumeus podcast is a good example. I don't especially like it that much (sorry guys, if you're reading), but as I sat in my car listening to it I tried to think it through constructively, rather than just declaring it sucky. I tried to answer questions like: 1) why don't I like it? (the smug attitude of 'gosh-aren't-we-just-coining-it-in-contractors', the ohmygodyes exclamations about everything, the poor sound quality) and, 2) could I do it better myself? (definitely not) and, 3) if it really is that bad, why am I still listening to it (and, of course, that's when I realized it's not actually that bad).

OK, some stuff genuinely is poor quality, and some people are fools, but maybe rather than berate them we would find it more constructive to ask the question "why has nobody else done better?", or "why didn't they spend extra time polishing it?", or "why is this guy in this position and not somebody else?". There are probably good answers to those questions. This is also moving in to 'constructive criticism' territory, which is actually good.

BTW, I'm not saying coddle me (or anybody else). Be honest, be brutally honest, but be constructive. Before getting all arsey and just slinging insults at someone or something, ask the question Why...?

</comment><comment><USER4> No, I won't. I was just going off on twitter ranting about the quantifiable suck of VOIP client interfaces (proof: <http://www.voipsupply.com/blog/free- sip-softphone-roundup>) They _all_ suck and the people building that should be aware.

Not only is there nothing wrong with demanding more from our fellow software builders, we _should_ demand more. That's how we make progress.

<comment><USER5> The point is that if your contribution ends at "this sucks," then you're not helping anyone out.

What I took from this is to either provide helpful, constructive criticism, or be quiet and let the people actually doing something instead of complaining on Twitter _do_ it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> why do people have the need to be coddled. If someone says it sucks and tells you why, its better than saying they love it and are lying about. Stop being so sensitive, and embrace any feedback.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't see why I would dream up awesome motivations where the real ones are actually rather mediocre, if not even pathetic. I kinda prefer having eyes in the head, a working brain etc.</comment>


Driverless Startup Zoox Suddenly Removes CEO - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-22/driverless-startup-zoox-said-to-remove-ceo-in-sudden-move <comment><USER2> The story that came out earlier this summer in Bloomberg was pure HBO Silicon Valley-esque hyperbole -> [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot- tax...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-taxi-startup- zoox-has-800-million-and-a-wild-pitch)

The degree I take a company seriously is inversely related to the hype spewed by these articles (see pre 10/2015 Theranos press)

<comment><USER3> But hype is part of the culture. I mean, there's a company whose motto was "do no evil".

<comment><USER4> I hate to be that guy, but it was "don't be evil" not "do no evil".

Basically meant "don't be like Microsoft" back in those days.

Very different meaning than people often assume, and not about hype. More about not letting success get to your head and using it to crush everyone else.

<comment><USER5> Glad that worked out, right? *this post best viewed in Google Chrome

<comment><USER4> Companies change over time. Microsoft also isn't the same "evil empire" it was in the late '90s and early '00s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Without a warning, cause or right of reply the board fired me".. There is more from Tim Kentley's twitter: [https://twitter.com/TimKentleyKlay](https://twitter.com/TimKentleyKlay)

He just posted a bunch of messages he got from his team at Zoox. Seems like a lot of employees really liked him and his leadership.

<comment><USER7> "Kentley-Klay, 43, is an improbable entrant into the crowded race to develop self-driving cars. He has no engineering degree, no background in computer science. Through his early 30s, he was a successful artist and designer—creating music videos and ads for major companies like McDonald's and Birds Eye frozen vegetables."

[https://www.forbes.com/feature/zoox-autonomous-cars- taxis/#1...](https://www.forbes.com/feature/zoox-autonomous-cars- taxis/#13a46f515755)

"In a move that some will call devious and others will call ingenious, Kentley-Klay reached out to some of the biggest names in the field and told them he was making a documentary on the rise of self-driving cars. The plan was to mine these people for information and feel out potential partners."

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot- tax...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-17/robot-taxi-startup- zoox-has-800-million-and-a-wild-pitch)

The whole thing seems insane to me. I don't understand why you would fund someone with no tech or business background... I'm sure he hired some good people, but it still doesn't make sense.

As to why the investors booted him? Investors generally don't kick out the CEO unless they did something crazy. It doesn't look good for the investor, and it makes it investment look bad (and follow on investment less likely).

<comment><USER8> Tim has lots of experience in business and tech. From scratch he built a self driving car company valued at $3.2 billion, whose autonomous OS is outperforming efforts from major automakers and tech companies and with a fraction of the resources. Zoox has gotten to where they are now on about $300 million. Others have spent far more and have a lot less to show for it.

<comment><USER9> Your comment history suggests that you have some relationship with Zoox that you're not disclosing.

You've commented on Zoox several times before in an overly enthusiastic manner. You've also commented several times before on autonomy and your comments have been called out for astroturfing in a couple of instances.

Readers please beware and take this comment with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER8> I've been accused of working for Waymo and Cruise too, because I defend them against the unfounded bullshit you guys spread about them. And about me, too, apparently. I'm a self driving car nerd, I moderate a subreddit dedicated to the subject under the same username I have here, and I've been following the industry, the technology and it's players since the DARPA days. Relative to the rest of the industry Zoox is doing incredibly well, so if you want to challenge me about something, how about instead of making up teleological conspiracy theories, challenge me on the facts.

<comment><USER10> I'm interested in the facts of what they're doing so well - do they have deployed systems taking passenger rides? This is/was my industry, so I'm not just asking idly.

As an aside, the lack of clarity about who you do work for is probably what's contributing to the "teleological conspiracy theories".

<comment><USER8> Zoox did several years of closed course testing and started on public roads in San Fransisco about 1 year ago with just 10 cars. Last fall they did a press event and took a few dozen journalists around for rides and everyone had good things to say about the performance of their vehicles. Their first set of disengagement reports for 2017 had them at 1 every 430 miles, which is worse than Waymo or Cruise, but way ahead of everyone else, and especially impressive given how few test miles they had racked up at the time. It lends credibility to the claims some have made that Jesse Levinson is the brightest guy in the industry.

Ashley Vance for Bloomberg did a big puff piece on Zoox a month ago, the video is pretty interesting, it's the first we've been able to see of their prototypes in action, and I had been waiting years to see if they were actually following through with their original vision:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-07-17/zoox-and- it...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-07-17/zoox-and- its-800-million-robo-taxi-dream-video)

A couple days ago some pics of an unidentified av test vehicle was spotted, and one of the smart guys in my subreddit called it out as a zooxmobile with an new sensor configuration arranged to match the configuration of their protoypes:

[https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2018/08/21/unidentifi...](https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2018/08/21/unidentified- suv-spotted-in-dogpatch-neighborhood-in-san-francisco/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't have a strong opinion on Zoox, this CEO, or even this story, but there sure does seem to be a lot of frustration in the self-driving world. Leaves me with two thoughts:

* There's a lot more runway for these bike sharing startups then I thought there'd be.

* Self driving is hard.

(^^ Copied from a duped post)

<comment><USER12> * There's limits to current AI/ML technology that create a hard ceiling and extends timelines long beyond the current hype cycle and nobody wants to admit it or else funding might stop coming in.

<comment><USER13> Exactly this. The hype was all in the prototyping phase of the technology, going as far as you can get to make a demo and impress some investors. Progress looked like it was happening quickly because a controlled demo could be made with existing technology.

Now that it's time to build full production systems the hardest problems and edge cases need to be addressed, which could be ignored for demo systems, and the solutions aren't available without some new research developments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Zoox? Those "Web 2.0 Name Generators" are fine if your company makes games or some nerdy stuff but I don't know how comfortable most people would be turning operation of their vehicle over to something that sounds like it was invented by Dr Seuss.

<comment><USER15> >It's an abbreviation of zooxanthellae, the algae that helps fuel coral reef growth

For what it's worth

<comment><USER16> I think I'd have gone with Zooxa ("zuza"). How do they pronounce Zoox, "zooks"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> You don't just get rid of the founder and CEO for shits and giggles. I'd love to know what it was that prompted this, although I'm not sure if we'll ever find out.

<comment><USER18> Since he doesn't claim to know why, by far the most likely reason is that they don't believe he has what it takes to take the company further, whether technically or in terms of management or industry experience.

This is the cold hard world of business which is why founders should keep some decent equity to make sure they don't get stiffed like the guys at Fanduel: [http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to- los...](http://uk.businessinsider.com/fanduel-founders-likely-to-lose-out- from-paddy-power-acquisition-2018-7)

<comment><USER17> Well he says he doesn't know why, but that seems disingenuous. If they had said they don't have confidence in his abilities to take the company forward that would be a reason - he could disagree but he would absolutely know why. So either they genuinely didn't tell him - which indicates it's something they think would cause trouble, or he does know why but won't tell us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Of what I've heard of Zoox (admittedly 2nd or 3rd hand), there definitely has been some precidence for "engineering to fit design goals" rather than "fitting design around engineering realities". Wouldn't surprise me if this non-technical CEO was part of this.

<comment><USER20> Also, wasn't this practice (i.e. engineering to fit design goals) what made Apple successful in releasing the iPod, iPhone, etc?

I am an engineer but welcome the perspective of designers and believe anyway that both need to work hand in hand.

In the case of driverless vehicles however, I am not sure the focus should overly be on design because this is a very hard problem that has yet to be solved, and maybe there was a way of designing a vehicle that was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, while mostly focusing on the technical challenges that must be overcome to get us to autonomy.

<comment><USER17> The key is that if your design goals are ambitious but achievable then you end up with a killer product. If your design goals are unrealistic or unachievable you tank what's achievable chasing a dream. Being frank the difference is probably that Steve Jobs had 30 years being a hands on expert in his field, and this guy was just some bloke who fancied building a self driving car.

All too often I've seen people set design goals when they don't understand the underlying problem. If jobs had targeted building an iPod that was physically smaller than the current smallest hard disk available he'd have been in this position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> post-Theranos the attitude towards "fake it 'till you make it" is a bit different.

<comment><USER22> Just as likely that ye olde skeleton has come a-knocking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> You might say the startup is now without its ... driver.

Sorry.

</comment><comment><USER24> Truly driverless.</comment>


Hey Gruber, what about the users? - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2010/08/31/heyGruberWhatAboutTheUsers.html <comment><USER2> I don't own an iPad but I think Apple's non-support of Flash is great. It's shipping the first major web browser in the last decade that's explicitly _not_ supporting flash.

So it's helping to make Flash more irrelevant every day, by forcing developers to finally consider that delivering their content in some executable binary blob isn't a reasonable thing to do on the web.

Thanks, Apple!

<comment><USER3> The point Dave makes in the original post, is that he sees new flash content being produced, so the boycott is not working. I think it is more productive to focus on promoting html5 to make flash irrelevant.

<comment><USER2> Of course sites are still going to produce content in Flash, but nowadays they at least have to consider that by doing so they're making it impossible for an ever increasing market segment to view their content.

I ran Debian on a PPC machine a few years ago so I couldn't use Flash. Back then only very odd setups like that didn't have it. Nowadays millions of people are buying new top of the line devices that don't support it, so the tide is turning as a result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Even if Apple wanted the iPad to support flash, how could they? A working mobile flash implementation does not exist, certainly wasn't even close to existing at the time the iPad was released, and the lack of it doesn't seem to have affected sales.

How could you possibly complain that the iPad doesn't support software that doesn't exist?

Let's postpone this discussion until when Adobe can show off a flash runtime that a) exist and b) doesn't suck. Is that too much to ask?

<comment><USER5> When I see people jailbreaking their iPhones to support flash, and flash works well, then the community should talk. Can't agree with you more.

<comment><USER6> Check out:

[http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/07/how-to-install-flash- on-y...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/07/how-to-install-flash-on-your- jailbroken-ipad-for-real/)

<comment><USER5> Sorry, I'm not trying to say that this wasn't yet possible, just that I want to see a number of people doing it. Are the reports good? does it work very well?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We must be using different Internet or maybe the website I browse aren't flash heavy.

I cannot recall a single instance where I thought... "Damn! If only I had flash on my iPad/ iPhone."

<comment><USER8> Try browsing for a new car or clothes. For whatever reason both of those verticals are highly dependent on Flash and as such unusable on the iPad. I would have thought luxury brands would have figured out by now that iOS demographics trend affluent and should be valued.

Update: Case in point...

<http://hugoboss.com> \- usable mobile site, but you can't see or buy any of the clothes!

<http://bananarepublic.gap.com/> \- "Flash required" error message and the same goes for the other Gap brands

<http://gucci.com> \- it's just a black screen

<http://dior.com> \- "Flash required" error

Etc etc, it's nutty. Car sites are a little better and usually break in more subtle ways (videos that don't work is common). Cadillac actually has a nice iPad optimized site, so kudos there.

<http://mazdausa.com> \- redirected to a really low-fi mobile version with much less information. A step up from WAP, not much.

<http://bmwusa.com> \- same as Mazda, a really horrible mobile site that is a column about 200px wide

<http://www.miniusa.com/> \- "Flash required" error page

<comment><USER9> It seems like those sites are exactly the kind of products I prefer to look at In Real Life, and not just as pictures on a computer.

Due to broken bones which forces me to stay at home, I've bought clothes online and it has resulted in a significant number of unpleasant surprises which are trivial to avoid in a physical shop. My (Danish) experience is that the shops that provide the most useful information are the shops that avoid Flash and uses plain html pages (e.g. Amazon, smartguy.dk).

Flash-based sites almost always makes it impossible to add "I probably want to buy this" bookmarks in the browser, so a lot of items don't get bought by me. So even when the browser supports Flash, the site starts out with a significant handicap (looking at you, H&M) ... and I don't have the patience for the transition animations that most Flash developers think is a must-have.

<comment><USER8> I typically browse online before making it to the store. If I see Hugo Boss has a nice looking new collection and I need a new suit I can then drop by the store. Maybe it's just that I don't like shopping, but I always do my research first.

Also, looking at my outfit today it was entirely bought online except for my socks and underwear. No broken bones either, I just find it convenient for clothes that don't need tailored.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish Dave would read and abide by "How to Disagree." The wisecrack about Gruber's minions takes a reasonable discussion and reduces it to Fox- Newsworthy labeling and ad hominem rhetoric.

People who agree with Gruber are cut from much the same cloth as people who want the choice of whether to run Flash.

<comment><USER11> It would be a great start if Gruber would read it.

<comment><USER10> I think I can hold my opinion and agree with yours simultaneously. Upmodded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "My perspective is that of an iPad user. I like the damned thing. But I feel like a pawn, and I don't like that."

I'm tired of seeing people complain about this. Apple has made their intentions clear from iPhone 1, day one. You are buying a read-only pass into the walled garden. If you don't like it, pick up a Galaxy Tab on VZW (arguably a better network) or wait for Motorola's dual core tablet later this year running the more tablet-centric Gingerbread. But cut it out complaining "as a user" about Apple.

Also: "Maybe if (hint hint) Gruber had comments on his blog, his minions wouldn't feel the need to vent on the sites he points to? Just a thought."

...this again? Really?

<comment><USER4> Dave should be able to sympathize with John, given that he's deleted quite a few comments off of that page (no cussing either).

<comment><USER12> What were the comments about? Why were they deleted? Critical of the author, content, etc?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it's less about whether Apple has Flash and more about how Gruber deals with dissenting opinions. I've seen him do hit jobs on bloggers for _their_ opinion and small-time indy programmers for their design with no provocation.

<comment><USER14> What qualifies as a "hit job" here? A dissenting post with a link? Isn't that what the "global conversation" on the world-wide-web is supposed to be all about?</comment></comment>


Our Flipboard competitor Zite is on almost 1% of all iPads after one week. - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20043893-52.html

<comment><AUTHOR> After years of developing recommender system tech, it's exciting to see such a huge response.

Thanks again, HN!

<comment><USER2> I've been using Zite recently on my new iPad and I must say I love it! I've easily spent more time on Zite than on any other app since i've bought my iPad. Great work and congratulations!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best compression format for HTML? - <AUTHOR> Is there any custom algorithm to compress HTML? I mean gzip is fast & good, bzip2 can compress even better and PAQ can do the best probably.<p>Is there anything specifically designed for HTML? <comment><USER2> HTML is repetitive text, and that is what conventional compression algorithms (like the ones you mentioned) are good at. How they work is pretty interesting, so I'd encourage you to go look it up.

The fact that you need to compress HTML makes me think there is a bigger problem, though (People shouldn't make complicated web pages).

<comment><AUTHOR> I know how these work and it's indeed interesting for example PAQ achieves great compression by training multiple neural networks but it's still generic so I thought maybe somebody already has pretrained something similar at large amounts of HTML so it gives really great compression even better than PAQ which has to start from scratch every time...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Brotli?

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

> Brotli uses a pre-defined 120 kilobyte dictionary [...] contains over 13000 > common words, phrases and other substrings derived from a large corpus of > text and HTML documents.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW: this is by far the best what I've read about compression [http://mattmahoney.net/dc/dce.html#Section_1](http://mattmahoney.net/dc/dce.html#Section_1)</comment>


Towards a better Erlang - The Excitement of Elixir - <AUTHOR> http://devintorr.es/blog/2013/01/22/the-excitement-of-elixir/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone have a counterpoint to this article about why not to use Elixir?

We're pretty deep into using native erlang for our work so I don't know how much benefit we'd squeeze out of a switch to Elixir, but this is quite intriguing.

BTW, thanks so much for the mention. The core of Kazoo is an all Erlang Stack and we're proud of it (before anyone jumps at me FreeSWITCH is not written in Erlang but it's also not something we at 2600hz wrote). Building the sorts of massively scalable infrastructures we want with the uptime requirements we need would be much harder without the awesome concurrency tools Erlang provides.

Delighted that people care about these kinds of languages :D.

Disclaimer: I am the Community manager for <http://www.2600hz.com> and the Kazoo Product.

<comment><USER3> Yes, there's one reason not to use Elixir that I know of: [Edit: It appears I might be wrong on this.]

It doesn't fully cover the erlang syntax. There are a few things you can do in erlang that you can't in elixir.

As I understand it, this will be resolved relatively soon, in an upcoming release, possibly only in a matter of months.

Elixir and erlang can be mixed pretty easily, so there's no harm in trying a module in elixir just to see how you like it. Underneath, it's "erlang all the way down", so you're unlikely to run into problems.

<comment><USER4> > "It doesn't fully cover the erlang syntax."

Wondering what exactly are you referring to?

<comment><USER3> I don't know. I'm new to the language, and after doing the "crash course for erlang developers" and reading the release notes about a month ago, I believe I read that there wasn't full coverage, and that it was expected in 8.0 (or maybe 7.4?)

You probably have forgotten more than I know about this language, so I'm just going to assume I'm mistaken (or was reading something out of date.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So... what's the catch? Can someone provide a devil's advocate against picking up Elixir?

I've been working at learning Erlang, but it's been a challenge and Ruby's syntax was a first love, so Elixir sounds ideal for me and I'm tempted to try it. It just... can't be as good as the hype. So I'd like some earnest objections to Elixir, especially if they're answered objections.

<comment><USER6> I am Elixir creator. There are a few downsides comparing Elixir today with Erlang. First, there are all trade-offs related to Elixir being a new language: we have fewer resources and a smaller community. Fortunately, Elixir community is growing very active (on IRC) and it is very likely you get some support on whatever you are tackling. Also, we haven't reached 1.0 yet, which means backwards incompatible changes may happen, but we do our best to properly deprecate them first.

Regarding the language features, since Elixir provides a macro system, you can apply to Elixir some of the same complaints people would apply to Lisp and meta-programming in general: i.e. people can definitely go overboard and write code that is hard to read and maintain ("magic"). On the other hand, Erlang does not provide macros and has a set of restrictions on how your code looks like (only one module per file, module forms cannot have custom expression, etc). At the end of the day, it boils down about Elixir giving you more power, but also requiring more responsibility from you to use it wisely. Some people prefer to work with a given set of strict rules.

Finally, we also do our best to have a regular and sane syntax (it is important after all to have sane macro behaviour). However, due to optional parenthesis, there is some space for ambiguity. Assuming you have a function named `abs`, `abs + 1` is treated as `abs() + 1` but `abs +1` as `abs(+1)`. Those cases are very few though and we also warn about them in the guide. It is one of the trade-offs you pay for having a more convenient syntax most of the times, so you can write:

        defmodule Foo do
          def bar do
            1
          end
        end

Instead of:

        defmodule(Foo) do
          def(bar()) do
            1
          end
        end

I believe this translates well some of the observations developers tell me when migrating from Erlang to Elixir.

<comment><USER7> "Erlang does not provide macros"

I never wrote any myself, but what about parse transformations? Aren't they essentially non-hygienic macros?

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I could have expressed myself better.

Erlang does not provide _lisp style_ macros. They provide macros, but they look more like templates and are limited. For example, a couple days ago I wanted to write this macro:

        -define(line(Opts), case lists:keyfind(line, 1, Opts) of
          { line, Value } -> Value;
          false -> 0
        end).

I can call this macro as:

        ?line(SomeOpts)

Basically, the compiler will replace ?line by the template defined above. You cannot manipulate the AST via such macros and they contain severe limitations. In particular, the example above just works if you use it once per function. Since variables are not hygienic, after you use ?line once, the variable Value is going to be bound and it will be considered unsafe (because it is defined in just one of the branches) and your code will fail to compile if you use it again.

In case you want to manipulate the AST, you can indeed use parse transforms. But it requires a considerable amount of work to get simple stuff done and iirc you can just use one per module.

<comment><USER7> Just minor nitpick: "lisp style macros" are not necessarily hygienic either, which is why you need (gensym). Not in Scheme, though.

"iirc you can just use one per module"

I happen to use erlando[1] often (it's fun!) and I use both do and cut transforms all the time. So no, there is no limit to how many parse transforms you can use in one module.

It's true, however, that writing them is a pain, which is why I never bothered to write one (just take a look at how the 'do' is implemented) - but I just accepted this as inevitable cost of not using s-exps as a language syntax. I'll take a look at how Elixir does it, I'd be very positively surprised if it manages to get real macros convenient in non-s-exp language :)

[1] <https://github.com/rabbitmq/erlando>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This doesn't have to be an "either or" choice. The great thing is both of them live on the wonderful BEAM VM. They both can take advantage of a completely concurrent garbage collector and all the other goodies. Some modules can be written in Erlang some in Elixir.

Elixir it seems very easily can call Erlang functions. I don't know about vice-versa though.

A lot of things in the article are related to syntax. I agree that single assignment is not needed for concurrency and the if statement can just return a nil. This, I argue is a matter of preference. In a large system knowing that a variable you set could not have changed, makes state management more explicit, some might see that as a benefit.

Also if statements are actually expressions, they should return a value. Choosing a default value of nil seems arbitrary. Just add another clause to if. Besides you'd probably want to use 'case ... of' anyway in most place. Just because 'if' in Erlang matches with the same keyword from C, doesn't mean that both work exactly the same way.

Now with the records, yes, there has been talk about adding "frames" (the equivalent of dictionaries or hash tables in other languages). The developers are thinking about it and I believe in release after the next or the one after that we might see that.

Now one thing I am really excited about in Elixir is macros. The ability to create a DSL. That is what probably will get to start playing with it.

<comment><USER6> > This doesn't have to be and "either one choice". The great think is both of > them live on the wonderful BEAM VM. They both can take advantage of a > completely concurrent garbage collector and all the other goodies. Some > modules can be written in Erlang some in Elixir.

Indeed!

> Elixir it seems very easily can call Erlang functions. I don't know about > vice-versa though.

Vice-versa is also true. :)

Given you have an Elixir module called String, you can it from Erlang as:

        'Elixir-String':upcase(<<"fin">>)

I agree 'Elixir-String' is not the prettiest sight but this is because Erlang had an experimental feature called packages that forbade us from using 'Elixir.String'. Luckily, this "feature" is being removed from R16 and in the future you should be able to simply call 'Elixir.String'. There is more information about integration with Erlang in the crash course:

<http://elixir-lang.org/crash-course.html>

> Choosing a default value of nil seems arbitrary.

nil would be an arbitrary choice if you look only at 'if'. But if the language constructs and the standard library consistently uses nil, it is coherent. In Erlang, not having a matching if raises an error, accessing an unknown key in process dictionary returns the atom 'undefined' and accessing an unknown key in a dict returns the atom 'error' or raises an error (depending on the function you call). In Elixir, they would all return nil. This is extremely important, because it allows you to create conveniences around nil, like the operators && and ||.

<comment><USER8> > Elixir-String':upcase(<<"fin">>)

Oh great! That is neat.

> This is extremely important, because it allows you to create conveniences > around nil, like the operators && and ||.

Ok, I understand now. Thanks for explaining.

BTW great work on Elixir. It is shaping up to be a really fantastic language and BEAM VM is too good not to be shared with other languages ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't possibly be alone in _liking_ the Erlang syntax...

<comment><USER10> Same here. When I learned it, I expected to have more trouble than I did, and the syntax just sits nicely with me. Despite all the complaints about when you use which punctuation, the wart factor seemed a lot lower than all the bleating complainers prepped me for. Some warts you can't get away from (e.g. records, though you might use the parse transform du jour), but others you can (e.g. if? Who uses if? Just use case!).

Elixir looks nice, but for now I've got my eye on Joxa[1] instead.

Anyway, lots of people worry about learning this syntax or that syntax. In this particular case, they should worry less about learning syntax and more about learning OTP, because once you get past lightweight message-passing concurrency and immutability, OTP's where most of the power lies for building a robust system.

[1] <http://joxa.org>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Elixir looks interesting, but the issues it addresses in Erlang are mostly superficial and subject to taste; eg I like single-assignment, and consider 'nil' a deficiency that can usually be avoided with proper typing. But each to his own -- Erlang does have its quirks, but for me, that mostly fades once you're neck-deep in code.

I'd like to see a BEAM-based language designed with an eye towards advancing the tenet of fault-tolerance in ways Erlang currently can't. Probably the most significant weakness right now is with the type system -- lacking exhaustive checks for pattern and function matching always makes me nervous, since that's probably the most common source of errors in my Erlang code.

Rust looks promising in this regard. If a best-practices framework emerges a'la OTP, Rust is going to be the dream love-child of ML, C and Erlang.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Elixir looks interesting, but the issues it addresses in Erlang are mostly > superficial.

Perhaps if you also view the issues Clojure addresses in Java to be mostly superficial, but I have to politely disagree.

> The language has its quirks, but that mostly fades once you're neck-deep in > code.

Respectfully, I would argue that the quirks aren't made apparent _until_ you're neck-deep in code. That's when it really becomes painful.

<comment><USER12> What? Yes, Elixir's syntax is different, but it retains most of Erlang's semantics. And it's not hard to see that Clojure and Java are _very_ different beasts, both syntactically and semantically.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm reminded of a talk by Rich Hickey in which he recounts his experiences trying to initially make Java more immutable. He concluded that while it was certainly possible, it was less than ideal and that a language such as Clojure facilitated expressing the semantics he wanted to convey. As a thought exercise, I would have you re-implement Spawngrid's mimetypes[1] library in Elixir to better understand what I mean. Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com and I can further elucidate.

[1]: <https://github.com/spawngrid/mimetypes>

<comment><USER4> mimetypes author & maintainer here. If I would ever have a tiny bit more time, I'd rewrite mimetypes in elixir in an instant. The solution we ended up doing in mimetypes, was the greatest fit for Elixir, not so much for Erlang (although, certainly possible — and it is being used by lots of Erlang developers).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yeah I'm monitoring them. Seems like a good bet that Elixir will be my language of choice down the road. Some great people behind it, I have a feeling once Dynamo gets a bit more mature (2013 is their year) the language will take off.

This video is a nice intro imo (~50 minutes): <http://vimeo.com/53221562>

<comment><AUTHOR> Developing on Dynamo is already a blessing compared to other Erlang web frameworks[1]. My benchmarking has put simple Dynamo apps on par with barebones Cowboy which isn't surprising given that Dynamo uses Cowboy under the hood.

[1]: <http://i.imgur.com/YyAVw1D.png>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can't quite grasp how elixir works with immutability. I have used erlang and am familiar with how it works. In elixir, is it saying that if I create a record and store it in variable "a", I can later set "a=3", but I am unable to change the record once it's created?

<comment><USER15> My understanding is that you can't set the variable per se. Rather, you can only bind a new variable with the same name, shadowing the old binding. This is very similar to how let bindings work in other languages like OCaml and Scheme.

So changing a is more akin to creating a new scope with a new value bound to a rather than mutating a. However, I should be clear that I'm just inferring this from how let statements work in other languages--I've never actually used Elixir.

<comment><USER6> This is correct. That's how Elixir works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is elixir strong enough to learn on its own, or should it be thought of in a Coffeeacript frame of mind - where learning the underlying Erlang is pretty much required..

<comment><USER7> It's an important question - I don't know myself, because I don't know Elixir and I'm not even sure if I want to learn it (I _like_ Erlang syntax...) but I'd like to know this too.

My quick guess is that no matter how much work goes into Elixir it is not going to replace all the libs written for Erlang, in Erlang - and so basic knowledge of Erlang is still needed to use Elixir to it's full capabilities, even if just for reading Erlang docs.

<comment><USER6> > My quick guess is that no matter how much work goes into Elixir it is not > going to replace all the libs written for Erlang, in Erlang - and so basic > knowledge of Erlang is still needed to use Elixir to it's full capabilities, > even if just for reading Erlang docs.

This is correct.

Syntax wise, you can learn about Elixir and not worry about learning Erlang syntax at all. However Erlang ships with OTP which, as the blog post says, is a design methodology and a set of libraries for building robust systems.

Elixir does not intend to replace OTP (at all). For example, the next Elixir version that will ship in a week contains docs and guides on how to write OTP applications. We explain most of the Erlang API required to do so, but eventually you will want to call OTP modules and read their docs, for example:

<http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/application.html>

Keep in mind that calling Erlang modules from Elixir is straight-forward and I believe you will find reading the docs too. You mostly need to know how the literals look like, for example:

        What      | Elixir     | Erlang
        atoms     | :foo       | foo
        modules   | Foo        | foo
        variables | foo        | Foo
        tuples    | { 1, 2 }   | { 1, 2 }
        lists     | [1, 2]     | [1, 2]
        binaries  | << 1, 2 >> | << 1, 2 >>

You can find more information in the Elixir/Erlang crash course:

<http://elixir-lang.org/crash-course.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Small nitpick: Clojure's macros are not hygienic. For better or for worse, this was a conscious decision.

If anything, Elixir's macros look more like Scheme's syntax-case, Rust's macros or sweet.js.</comment>


Ask HN: Technical Patents - <AUTHOR>

I have a new startup nearly ready to go, and the core algorithm is patentable. I have yet to find a competent technically minded patent attorney, and really don't want to waste money weeding out of the bunch. In previous patents I ended up writing most of the filing anyway but was still stuck with a huge invoice.
Does anyone have good experience with any technical patent attorneys who can handle machine learning/statistics patents?
Alternatively I am considering writing it myself. I have written a few in the past, have the relevant books and have read a lot of the patent db in my field. Any advice? <comment><USER2> Did your previous patents bring you enough to make it worth your while ?

Personally I'm against all patents, especially software patents. If a competitor would come up with a copy of your service would you sue based on your belief that they must infringe your patent ? Would you consent to being sued in case it turns out you are infringing someone elses software patent ?

Don't you think the copyright on your software provides you with adequate protection ?

I understand there may be a financial incentive to do this, and there is the angle 'if I won't do it someone else may do it', but especially in the field of software I think that patents are best avoided. Personally I've given every so called patent holder the finger (there was that outfit that claimed I was infringing on their patent to send video over the internet, then another one that claimed I was infringing on a patent to rank video based on popularity and some more that I've forgotten about). In all of those cases the so called 'patent holder' (I think patent troll is more appropriate) called it a day when I refused to budge.

<comment><AUTHOR> The non-software patents were critical.

This isn't patenting a button clicking method. It's more similar in utility and specificity to pagerank. It has been a huge R&D effort over the last few years.

We could just keep it secret. But I want to publish with it and it could be valuable if the startup is as successful as we hope. Isn't that what the patent system is for?

If other startups entered our market and used the same algorithm; I am unsure what I would do. It's more for potential investors/acquisitions and our ability to publish.

<comment><USER2> Then I would seriously advise against publishing, because once published the cat is out of the bag and a patent will not protect you. Keep in mind that software patents are not recognized in a large part of the world and if one of your competitors sets up shop in a country where software patents are not valid you have no recourse.

For a physical apparatus it's a wholly different game.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Patent prosecution has its own nuances; a few differences in wording can make or break a case in litigation.

You could look at IP law firms and look through their roster of patent attorneys; alternatively, you could look for a small or solo patent attorney (e.g. google machine learning patent attorney).

If you're associated with a university, you wish to investigate working with them to acquire the patent.

Best of luck with your patent and startup!

</comment><comment><USER4> > I have a new startup nearly ready to go

How about spending that time getting your startup from "nearly there" to launched? Your patent won't mean squat if you don't have a good product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Patenting is the last item on our pre-launch list

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> what area is your startup focussing on?

<comment><AUTHOR> Improving productivity.</comment></comment>


Crossfeed – more natural sound for headphones? - <AUTHOR> http://www.meier-audio.homepage.t-online.de/crossfeed.htm <comment><AUTHOR> I recently came across the crossfeed concept. I think it does make the sound in headphones much better. It seems to be a very simple and natural thing to use, so why isn't it more popular?</comment>


Mysterious Wow Signal Came from Comets, Not Aliens, Claims Scientist - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/mysterious-wow-signal-came-from-comets-not-aliens-cl-1752331824 <comment><USER2> Non-Gawker link: [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28747-famous-wow- sign...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28747-famous-wow-signal-might- have-been-from-comets-not-aliens/)

<comment><USER3> Appreciate the non-Gawker link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> no advanced civ is using hertz EM waves. Hertz EM waves are only good for broadcasts and look at us, we already replacing broadcast TV with IPtv. If our phycisists would not be so blind and look into the predicted (Lord Kelvin) and discovered (Tesla) scalar waves and would try to understand how smith coils work, we would also not use Hertz EM waves for our point2point connections, which turn the spectrum into a unnecessary shared medium. But that would require thinking outside the box...</comment>