Cuomo to Ban Fracking in New York State, Citing Health Risks - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/cuomo-to-ban-fracking-in-new-york-state-citing-health-risks.html?_r=0

<comment><USER2> This is an interesting day for LNG. We have this decision and then the largest vessel in the world being a floating LNG processing plant. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8761902](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8761902)

Maybe they'll finally give up on the incredibly inefficient tar sands?</comment>


Ask HN: What's a great algorithms book? - <AUTHOR>

A web resource would do, too.  I'm looking for an engaging read, and a tool for recognizing patterns, more than a complete dissertation on the subject. <comment><USER2> To recognize patterns, a great resource is Steven Skiena's "Algorithm Design Manual."

After a few introductory/overview chapters, it launches into a dictionary of algorithms, organized by problem description. There are also pointers to implementations, but the focus is high-level descriptions of what sorts of algorithms for look for, and how to choose among them.

<comment><USER3> I'll second Skiena's work. It's amazing, pragmatic advice and an enjoyable read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I learned from Sedgewick <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/032157351X/>

However, it was a much earlier edition and all the examples are in Pascal. Having to mentally convert the code from 1-based arrays to 0-based like any decent language has been a major pain over the years.

This looks like a C version: [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithms- Parts-1-4-Fundamentals-Stru...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithms- Parts-1-4-Fundamentals-Structures/dp/0201314525/)

</comment><comment><USER5> <https://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vazirani/algorithms/all.pdf>

A little more accessible, I think.

</comment><comment><USER6> Web source, WikiBooks:

<http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Algorithms></comment>


Stop Calling it "Mobile" - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hartleybrody.com/calling-it-mobile/

<comment><USER2> I don't get it. It's mobile computing. Call it mobile. Just like desktops are still called desktops and laptops are still called laptops and servers are still called servers and google glass still doesn't have a category name (wearables?) and and and and..

This feels like a pigeon-holed argument.</comment>


From A to B, and then ∞ or how imagination works - <AUTHOR> http://1p1e1.tumblr.com/post/12932290478/from-a-to-b-and-then-or-how-imagination-works

<comment><USER2> >> _Imagine, where do we place ∞ on the coordinate system?_

The answer is to add a new point, which is called the point at infinity. Maybe you will find this interesting:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere>

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely interesting. But it's hard to wrap my head around it. :p

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Let's talk pinguins!</comment>


U.S. Warns Of Spy Dangers Of Chinese-Made Drones - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/727612692/we-re-not-being-paranoid-u-s-warns-of-spy-dangers-of-chinese-made-drones <comment><USER3> Why not publish a specific threat?

These vague "The Chinese are up to something but we cannot reveal what" isn't really helpful, particularly given the current trade tensions (and political motivations e.g. "bring jobs home").

I'm not really "siding" with the Chinese, they may be up to something, but the US has really done themselves a great deal of damage when their own allies don't really believe them.

Just publish technical information. It isn't hard. It would do huge damage to the Chinese and reinforce the US's whole argument. But yet after over a year, nada.

<comment><USER4> There have been instances whereby a robotic hoover (Xaomi(sp?) one?) have been sending their generated floor maps back to servers in CN, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume drones could be doing the same thing.

<comment><USER3> We're talking national security. I hope nobody is running a Xiaomi robot vacuum at a sensitive or classified site, or any other brand of robot vacuum for that matter...

There's a difference between individual invasions of privacy and national security. There's definitely Chinese apps that invade your privacy. There's also Western apps that do too. The question is of national security however.

<comment><USER5> Observing private homes can help select your targets. By observing the inside of the home you may learn if the owner has access to secrets (national security or commercial), what kind and what level. From where you can switch to traditional methods. My 2c.

<comment><USER3> It gives you the layout of homes, it doesn't allow you to observe their occupants. It is a spinning laser.

<comment><USER6> Add voice control ("Hey Robot, run a sweep") and WiFi and you have a very capable spy system. Not to mention cameras and GPS which could all be justified in terms of improving the performance of robot vacuums.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems like they're just saying:

\- China makes most of the drones

\- A lot of them aren't very secure

Which isn't surprising to me considering the state of things like DVR cameras (also mostly made by China, also plagued with security issues) and similar tech.

The real problem is that consumers want cheap but quality and security aren't cheap. The cost of security isn't obvious and consumers don't really know how to evaluate it.

But, when things like drones and cameras start communicating over the 5G backbone then we should maybe be concerned about who controls both of them.

<comment><USER8> > start communicating over the 5G backbone

5G operates at OSI layer 1 (and maybe has some impact on layer 2). I've never heard of any aspect of it changing higher layers, which is where the concerns about control come in. Is there something I'm missing?

If not, 5G has nothing to do with application-level control (eg: controlling a drone's movements, intercepting a camera feed, etc). We'll still use TCP/IP, HTTPS, and everything else we use today. It may or may not be a concern right now (due to inadequate security at the higher OSI layers), but 5G -- or any other type of network topology -- does not change this. Please don't spread this type of psuedo-technical nonsense by making statements like this, especially with anything "5G" which is a current media fascination for some reason (starting to get bored with "IoT" maybe?).

<comment><USER7> That's not what I was suggesting at all.

If you control the cell infrastructure you absolutely can put cellular capabilities into products that aren't explicitly advertised. That would be a bigger risk for surveillance tech.

Your complaint ignores my original statement about controlling _both_ components (cellular and device). There is no need to tamper with someone else's TLS-secured communications or anything, you can just plant cellular capabilities into the devices.

<comment><USER8> I didn't pick up that's what you meant by "both of them" so sorry for my misunderstanding.

However I still don't think 5G is an important factor here. If you control both ends at a higher layer of the stack (eg, it's your own software connecting to your own servers) you can do whatever you'd like. If you have OTA software updates, you can do whatever you like _at any point in the future_. If this channel is properly secured with TLS no one can intercept or fake it, and if you want, you can design the devices so it won't work without this connectivity present (see: most cloud-based "smart home" devices on the market today).

> If you control the cell infrastructure you absolutely can put cellular > capabilities into products that aren't explicitly advertised. That would be > a bigger risk for surveillance tech.

So many devices already have internet connectivity built-in, and if money is not a concern you can already incorporate a GSM modem and pay for a link to the existing cellular networks -- it's not like AT&T (or whoever) is going to care what you are doing with the connection, so long as you're paying for it. You can also use other short-range radio links.

I'll grant you that 5G introduces the possibility to have this link without AT&T's knowledge -- at least assuming they don't have the ability to also detect the traffic coming out the tower's uplink. The big downside of this attack vector, aside from the immense cost and complexity of building this into 5G carrier equipment and all these devices, is if detected and blocked at the uplink all that effort is suddenly for nothing.

Basically, the 5G-specific attack vector is expensive and brittle, and thus pretty unlikely. The attack vector at application level is easy and cheap (no hardware-related costs), gets you almost all the same capabilities, and in many cases can be done today on existing in-field products with OTA software updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> temp-dude-87844 Hmmm, it's almost like all this sensor-loaded, networked hardware, whose signing keys are held abroad, could be realistically adapted for intelligence- gathering by a push of a few buttons if a government the company couldn't blow off compelled it so, but if a script kiddie hacked them for entertainment it could still be pretty bad.

It's really not that different from the FUD about Kaspersky [1] or the still- ongoing saga of Huawei. In the past, such capability had to be deliberately planted at great effort, while these days we buy it voluntarily and spread it in our homes and businesses, fly them above our cities, and put them in networking closets to sit in the middle of all of our communication.

Sure it's FUD, but it's the government and military coming to terms with the implications of what just happened, and trying to shape the future to lessen a risk. This is orthogonal to whether they want the exact same capability for friendly-made goods, or whether there's any industry of comparable domestic goods left. Other countries, when they have a spare moment after dealing with domestic needs, are also well within their rights to feel the same kind of unease about Cisco, Juniper, Intel... hell, Tesla? Have you seen the number of cameras on that thing, and the fact that it can drive on its own?

This is the evolution of 'loose lips sink ships', where the capability of people to spread information has multiplied, but soon people won't even be necessary for information to be disclosed. Their consumer goods will do it for them.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17193172#17193475](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17193172#17193475)

</comment><comment><USER9> Isn't it the same with the US government? They can request info from any US company using the well known NSA letters.

It looks like the US technology is a national security risk for any other sovereign nation.

</comment><comment><USER10> World: We're not being paranoid. US drones kill innocent civilians around the world.

They're really beating the drum on China. Be intensely suspicious. China is a trading partner that does some shitty things (e.g. in Xinjiang province), but the nation focused on world domination is the one right here.

<comment><USER11> You're comparing apples and oranges. US drones aren't doing fully autonomous killing, they're killing through policies of leaders you help elect. That's the apples. The oranges is tech we purchase (drones in particular) having backdoors. Why do you think these two are comparable?

<comment><USER12> yeah, it's more comparable to Androids and iPhones.

the US government could deploy an update to turn any phone into a spy device because both apple and Google are headquartered in the US

<comment><USER13> You say that like it's a settled issue and I don't think it is. If the capability is there, companies can be compelled to use it. If the capability doesn't exist, it isn't clear that companies can be compelled to invent it.

<comment><USER14> It's unfortunately a reality for us down under though - so it's not beyond the realm of imagination

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The problem that US is facing is the loss of credibility over time. It reminds me of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. US doesn't have the credibility to convince the world anymore, even if the threat is real..

There is a lot of rebuilding the US has to do. First fix the politics which is rife with petty interests, lobbying, political imbalance very skewed towards corporations over citizens, extreme polarization, 2 party system, hypocrisy,etc..

But all that, with great effort, can be fixed. A purge is needed, not just try to shove the dirt under a carpet and pretend all is nice and dandy.

<comment><USER16> The other thing that has happened is the internet and the free flow of information. It is no longer the case of manipulating 3-4 media outlets. People get their information at thousands of different places. I think its not really a loss of credibility, but the normalization of credibility based on a huge pool of information, rather than a restricted one.

<comment><USER15> I was referring to past actions of the US that proved to be unjustified and disastrous: WMDs in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.. This is related to the normalization of credibility based on information ubiquity, but I think it's mainly US's actions speaking for themselves. After the WWII us has become a policing force that more or less , with the exception of the Vietnam war, wasn't as active in foreign wars as they've been recently. The Vietnam war fuckup was largely forgotten or attributed to a different America that had changed. But the recent wars were also pointless and proved otherwise.

Once again, US has the ability to change, but it will take a lot of effort to do so and will have to start leading by example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The solution to this problem are laws that require devices like this to support self-hosted servers for OTA, data, or anything else. You should not be required to use a vendor's services AND the vendor should not be allowed to implement permanent back-doors.

The problem, of course, is that runs afoul of US espionage and law enforcement demands that they have access to such data themselves.

They want it both ways in a world where you literally, cannot have it both ways. US cyber policy on this front has been a disaster.

<comment><USER18> You don't need laws for that. You just need companies offering it and consumers choosing it. Which won't happen until it's easy to do.

Consumers can change a lightbulb and little else. Make it that simple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Says the country whose NSA scoops up on every piece of data and spies on everyone, including their own citizens.

<comment><USER20> Why don't you learn more about "Prism Event"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > DJI offered a bounty for researchers to uncover bugs in its drones

I'm not sure they understand how bug bounties are supposed to work...

[https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/11/dji-l...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/11/dji-left-private-keys-for-ssl-cloud-storage-in-public-view- and-exposed-customers/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Isn't this the US's fault for letting manufacturing move to China in the 1980-present? Any large global migration of industry will have this same threat eventually.

<comment><USER23> Lack of foresight is a collective trait of the human condition. It'd be interesting to see who the protestors of said outsourcing in the 80s were, and see what they say now. How did they foresee it in the first place? Is the current outcome better or worse than they thought it'd be? What's their current prediction for the state of things in another 40 years? A good article topic for the journalists out there.

<comment><USER24> Lots of people saw it. It was obvious if your job was being outsourced or if your factory was being closed, quite apparent if no new machinery was being invested in.

At the time Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were around and all of this was discussed. The predicted decline happened. There are capitalist rent seeker types that are okay with it, they also voted for the lunatic politicians. The people not so happy about it don't get to write for the capitalist newspapers giving the illusion to people with no skin in the game that 'nobody predicted this calamity'.

So predictions for forty years hence? It does not work like that, does it? Back in the 1980's you just knew that if manufacturing was gone that there would be no market for locally made goods, no possibility of exporting quality stuff on the world market and that we would not be able to drive prosperity on the back of financial services forever.

If you push someone over a cliff you are not sure whether they will break their neck, crack their head open or get impaled on a spike, all you know is that the outcome will not be a good one.

Right now we are using far too much in the way of fossil fuels, the climate is not right and it is getting worse. I don't know how ravaged the world will be in forty years hence, all I do know is that carrying on as we do is not a good idea.

<comment><USER25> One concept that always struck me as bizarre, was "we'll move the manufacturing overseas, but the manufacturing engineering will remain in the US". Years later, I asked a Harvard economics professor about it. He said yes, he'd taught that... "the ideas were in the air" (paraphrase - it's been years).

So one problem I have with much analysis of Trump populism, is its failure to recognize that subcultures doing group-think, believe absurdities, and tolerating being lied to, are a broader problem, worthy of more fundamental analysis, and an opportunity for broader remediation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> >"[If] you fly a drone above a pipeline, there's a pretty good chance someone is gonna see it up there," he said, but "a spy satellite just takes a picture from 120 miles up or whatever. Then, of course, no one's going to know what happened."

You have to be kidding, no one is going to notice a white drone 3km[0] above them, if there even is anyone around to notice. Sure, a spy sat is better, but it's also orders of magnitude more expensive, can't loiter[1], and might still have inferior imaging. This is just embarrassing.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJI_(company)#Phantom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJI_\(company\)#Phantom) [1]: Spy satellites pretty much always orbit faster than the earth turns in order to have better coverage.

</comment><comment><USER27> Security researchers in the field have been talking about this for several years. DJI absolutely dominates the consumer/pro UAV market so this is a real issue.

Source: I had a UAV related startup several years ago and got to know some of the security folks.

<comment><USER28> The real issue is security or the real issue is a non-US company dominating in a tech field?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I remember having a conversation with my U.S. Army archaeologist friend about using drones for remote sensing in restricted areas and he showed me the DJI drone that's been sitting on their shelf for months because the folks upstairs said they can't fly chinese anything in restricted areas.

Apparently the army does have drones that are sufficiently american to be flown in restricted areas but my friend doesn't know who is making them or how a civilian like myself could acquire one.

I would like to get one for my biologist friend who would like to use it to detect invasive plant species.

<comment><USER25> This[1] suggests "Parrot, Skydio, Altavian, Teal Drones, Vantage Robotics, and Lumenier" might be companies to check.

[1] [https://www.globenewswire.com/news- release/2019/05/28/185110...](https://www.globenewswire.com/news- release/2019/05/28/1851104/0/en/Parrot-selected-by-U-S-Department-of-Defense- to-take-part-in-the-development-of-the-next-generation-of-Short-Range- Reconnaissance-drone-for-the-U-S-Army.html)

<comment><USER29> Thanks for the tip. I'll look into these companies and run my findings by my government friends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "I'm not being paranoid": warns of propaganda mouthpiece dangers of twice a day China threat articles on Hacker News. Yeah.

</comment><comment><USER31> Youre only paranoid if youre wrong.

<comment><USER32> paranoia, it is not just a social condition, it is also a defense mechanism.......

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> "I'm not being paranoid", said every paranoid ever

<comment> the-dude The fact you are paranoid does not mean they are not after you.

<comment><USER33> But makes it more likely that you'd be seeing stuff that isn't there. And stating one is not paranoid does not convey any kind of useful information since the most paranoid are usually the ones who will be more convinced they aren't. Case in point, I don't know if US is being paranoid on this or not and I couldn't care less. I was just pointing out the general case of how ironic it is for someone to argue that they are not being paranoid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Alexa, please ask NSA to provide me with the traces of network exchanges initiated by my chinese drone"

</comment><comment><USER35> [https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/that-time-republicans- smashe...](https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/that-time-republicans-smashed-a- boombox-with-sledgehamm-1775418875)

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder how much of this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, aided in part by ongoing weaponization of inter-nation trade discussions by targeting firms from China (arrests of executives, bans, etc). Of course, I've seen it argued that China has been targeting US firms for a decade in various ways - <USER2> only makes the events this year yet another escalation of action.

</comment><comment> happy-go-lucky > "The Communist Party of China now has in their law the ability to interfere > and take information from virtually every Chinese company,"

I think that not only the Communist Party of China but all the political systems around the world have the ability to demand lawful access to information from virtually every company that is supposed to comply with their laws.

<comment><USER37> The problem (or a problem) is that the rule of law in China is apparently capricious and unpredictable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Is this the whole Furby scare from 20 years ago[1]? Granted the tech is much more advanced and it's more plausible today. All the fear mongering is fatiguing.

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/talking-toy-or- spy/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/talking-toy-or-spy/)

</comment><comment><USER39> "We're not being paranoid"

No, but the amount of suggestive "Might" "Could" etc titles/articles now out there shows a whole other picture. China is now the new enemy. And everybody must know apparently.

Even respectable news outlets can't resist the temptation of completely unfounded copying of the American media machine.

I'm not stating China is so innocent, but sorry there is only one country in the world systematically spying, bombing and manipulating friend AND enemies alike. And that's the USA.

So please, my dear Americans. Stop it yourself and we might lend you our ear again. Sincerely, a fellow world citizen, located in Europe.

<comment><USER40> >but sorry there is only one country in the world systematically spying, bombing and manipulating friend AND enemies alike. And that's the USA.

*and Germany. Don't forget, every U.S. (and Saudi) Abrams tank has a Rheinmetall cannon.

[https://spiegel.de/international/germany/german- intelligence...](https://spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence- also-snooped-on-white-house-a-1153592.html)

[https://www.thelocal.de/20190311/germany-fourth-largest- expo...](https://www.thelocal.de/20190311/germany-fourth-largest-exporter-of- arms-in-world-report)

[https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy- jobs/news/germany-e...](https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy- jobs/news/germany-earned-2-9-billion-euros-from-greeces-debt-crisis/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Something I've wondered- why hasn't Lenovo received the same flack that DJI and Huawei received?

<comment><USER35> Lenovo does nothing more than assemblying, and their acts on PC can be easily identified.

<comment><USER42> No, assembling means more security risks, as it could temper more parts.

However, trump saying that Huawei could be part of the trade deal means banning Chinese companies has nothing to do with security. The US didn't go after Lenovo simply because assembling isn't a high value add process and doesn't threat US tech leadership. Huawei got banned because its tech is too advanced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I just got a DJI Mavic Air to take pictures and videos when we go hiking. Now I feel weird.

</comment><comment><USER44> So I guess it's fine for the US to ship Intel hardware with suspected backdoors in the ME. But it's somehow unacceptable for the Chinese to be rumoured to do the same?

<comment><USER45> From the US point of view, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. (See also my reply here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19975483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19975483))

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Now they know how everyone else feels

</comment><comment><USER47> Why not resolve the 737 MAX issues first, if we are worried about flying things causing damage?

<comment><USER48> This is not even the same Department. A government can and should have multiple simultaneous priorities.

<comment><USER49> A government also can and should prioritize amongst multiple simultaneous priorities.

<comment><USER48> They do. That's why governments have different departments (DHS and DOT in this case) and associated, prioritized budgets.

<comment><USER49> No I am talking about more directly. As an obvious example, in wartime everything goes to support the defense of the nation and is shifted to support that goal.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Follow GitHub Library Releases - <AUTHOR> https://releazer.cyk.mx/ <comment><AUTHOR> Get web push notifications directly on your device from your favorite GitHub libraries you follow, you can add up to 10 libraries (in the beta phase) and get a notification when a new version comes out. It's a PWA, so you can install it on your phone</comment>


Information Unit Nomenclature: Bits or Shannons? - <AUTHOR> http://muq.org/~cynbe/my-two-bits-worth.html <comment><USER2> I must have missed something basic here - is there some reason that "physical data storage capacity", and "information-theoretic information content", should have different units? Aren't they the same thing?

I guess a string of 2^32 '0's would take 4 gigs, but it's information content is much smaller. Is this what he means?

I have heard of people using natural logs instead of base-2 logs to compute the average entropy of a distribution in which case information is measured in "nats" instead of "bits".</comment>


Enhancing the Terraform Experience: Why We Use Terragrunt - <AUTHOR> https://transcend.io/blog/why-we-use-terragrunt <comment><USER2> Terraform has needed a wrapper or helper script to make it properly useful and compatible since the beginning, yet in recent years is becoming more functional to need less wrapping.

Terragrunt, is however, completely the wrong way to go about it and is far from a thin wrapper, but a prescriptive way to go about writing and organizing and managing Terraform code that makes it awkward to retro-fit into existing codebases. We have tried.

If you are starting from zero, that would be a good time to start with Terragrunt, but on the other hand, you probably don't need it and the added overhead these days.

Toolchains get convoluted, and Terragrunt is an example of the JavaScript kool-aid leaking into Infra, and I would not advise touching it unless you understand what it does and why you need it, which is a good adage for a lot of stuff, as it happens.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hello! I authored this post, and would love to get some community feedback.

I've really enjoyed using both Terraform and Terragrunt, and think you and your company would as well.

Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer

</comment><comment><USER4> I was wondering what Terragrunt is and now I know, sort of, so thanks.

This is not a space I know much about and I have nothing intelligent to ask, but since you know this space and you're soliciting questions, I'll just ask you to confirm or correct a suspicion I have about "devops" in general.

It seems to me there are currently two competing, mutually exclusive paradigms for deployment at scale. One is to develop and deploy microservices in Docker containers and deploy using Kuberneres, and the other is to deploy cloud images using Terraform and config management tools.

It seems to me that these two approaches are pretty much incompatible, and I must choose one or the other, and there's very little overlap, if any. Do you think this is so, or am I missing something important?

<comment><USER5> Infrastructure as Code, of which Terraform / Terragrunt is one tool, definitely has its place in the Kubernetes / Docker ecosystem too.

You're right that it's somewhat of an afterthought and most IaC tools are focused on native cloud infrastructure though.

Check out Pulumi, they're doing amazing work extending Terraform (utilizing terraform itself, it's open source), as well as bringing kubernetes support for major cloud provider flavours as well as managing service deployments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Terragrunt should turn polyamorous. Its monogamy with AWS goes against its wider adoption.

<comment><USER7> Huh? Terragrunt has support for the same things that Terraform supports, a wide variety of different cloud providers (and other API enabled services).

<comment><USER6> I guess they no longer have the remote state locking with DynamoDB. Anyway, I see a lot of AWS IAM stuff with no Azure and GCP support equivalent.</comment></comment></comment>


Blogger Finger - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2010/07/blogger-finger.html <comment><USER3> I'm not sure how to express how happy I am that Steve Yegge is back. He's one of my blogging heroes. One of the few bloggers that I'm planning to reread entirely one day, because his writing is _just that good_. If you've never had the pleasure, _don't_ be put off by the long blog posts. Read them, read them all, they're all amazing.

On the length issue: Honestly, Steve's posts were quite long (much like Paul Graham's). To me, it doesn't matter, because every one of them was worth reading all the way through. It sometimes meant I'd have to leave them for later, but I still read them. He mentions that he believed the length might have been a reason people read his posts. I can't speak for anyone else, but if the quality of his writing stays the same, I don't care _how_ long his posts are, I'm reading them. The day he "retired" was truly a sad day for me.

By the way, I would happily buy a book of his collected writings (ala Hackers and Painters), so I really wish he would make such a book.

<comment><USER4> He's one of my blogging heroes as well. He inspired me to get out of my C/C++/Java comfort zone and embark on a strange and mind-expanding journey through Ruby, Haskell, Scala, culminating in Clojure. When I got to Clojure, I immediately thought, "by golly, this looks like the Lisp Steve Yegge was searching for!" Can't wait to see his thoughts on Clojure.

<comment><USER5> Pretty positive, I expect. From the the end of today's post:

> I used to have lot of open, long-standing concerns about the future of > programming and productivity, but my sabbatical last year finally brought me > some clojure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know that negative criticism can hurt, no matter how insignificant or pointless. So to people like Steve Yegge, Joel Spolsky, the 37signal guys, pg, and many others who put part of themselves out there for the benefit of others, I suggest putting things into perspective with this handy formula:

Let n = the number of people whose lives your writing has effected.

Let m = the average magnitude of that effect.

Let e = the distribution effect of your medium (for one on one, e = 1,in a room of others, e = 2, print, e = 3, popular blog or forum, e = 4, etc.)

Let z = the sum of all the negativity of those who don't matter.

Then if the net total effect of your writing is A, we can say:

      A = (n*m)**e - <USER2>

So, for almost any value of z, A will remain positive. Keep on writing. Please.

<comment><USER7> I don't think any of Steve's critics is imploring him to stop writing altogether — they're asking him to start writing _well_.

<comment><USER8> What exactly is it about Steve's writing that is bad? Bad writers almost never have a following and certainly never have the following that Steve has acquired. I would argue the contrary, that Steve's writing is quite good in that it evokes an emotion in the reader almost without exception. The emotion may be positive or negative but the fact that the emotion exists is evidence that his writing is not bad.

Maybe you disagree with it or maybe you find it objectionably long but those things are different from saying he is a bad writer. I think Steve's critics are typically angry about something he has written about one of their hobby horses but I strongly doubt too many of them are imploring him to write better.

<comment><USER9> _Bad writers almost never have a following_

Let's see, the guy who wrote the Da Vinci Code, the lady who writes the Twilight books, Ayn Rand, oh we could go on. Now, if you're willing to redefine the meaning of 'good' to mean 'creates a response' then a lot of bad things can pass for good. But it's the sort of silliness that might evince a response that is not, you know, good.

<comment><USER10> Dude, unsuccessful writers think people want "good writing" - they don't. They want to be entertained, inspired, informed, distracted, improved, whatever - you don't need a mastery of language to do that. In fact, if you let your mastery of language get in the way of entertaining, inspiring, informing, and otherwise serving people's needs, then that's quite silly.

> But it's the sort of silliness that might evince a response that is not, you > know, good.

Start by cutting out words most people don't know. I read between 3 and 10 books per week (closer to 10 lately) and I don't know what "evince" means. Start spending less time looking smart and more time serving people and you'll go much, much further in life.

Ignore this advice if you're secretly a best-selling multi-millionaire author who has inspired a lot of people who don't normally read to pick up a book instead of watch TV. In which case, carry on using the big words to bash other best-selling multi-millionaire authors who are inspiring a lot of people to read who normally don't, and entertaining them for doing so.

<comment><USER9> _Dude, unsuccessful writers think people want "good writing" - they don't_

Dude, what does that have to do with anything? The claim was bad writers have no following. Which is not true. That's all.

 _I read between 3 and 10 books per week (closer to 10 lately) and I don't know what "evince" means_

Happy to do my little bit broadening someone's vocabulary.

 _Ignore this advice_

Thanks, I will. Mostly because I don't think I or any of the people I was having a discussion with were asking for advice. But I'll come back and re- read this during my next advice shortage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've had my fair share of code reviews, so I had always assumed that I was adapted to criticism. However, in the process of writing a book I've discovered a whole new level of frustration. To be fair, there have been mistakes put down on the page and I fully expect that they be criticized. However, as soon as the face-to-face aspect of criticism is eliminated people lose their damn minds. I imagine 50 years ago there were boundless trolls writing their screeds to local newspapers. However, thanks to the Internet those guys have no barrier preventing their vitriol. As much as you try to avoid letting it bother you, the constant barrage is exhausting. I can't even imagine what it must be like for someone of Yegge or pg's readership.

As a teen I worked at a record shop. 99% of all customers were nice, courteous, or at worst disregard my existence. However, a single dickweed was all it took to ruin your whole day.

<comment><USER12> It's the GIFT.

<http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm thrilled that Yegge has made peace with the pack of wolves that roam the Internet, seeking to disparage those who... well, who knows their offense? He referenced them in some of his previous posts [0], so I figured they finally got the best of him. I loved reading his missives, and was sad to see them go.

[0] In _Story Time,_ for instance, Steve says "If you read the comments with (Comic Book Guy)'s voice, a lot of them make a whole lot more sense."

<comment><USER14> "Dogs bark but the caravan moves on." -- Arab proverb

<comment><USER15> "Haters gonna hate." -- Internet proverb

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Steve Yegge is the one person who comes closest to being singlehandedly responsible for my programming career. Back in high school, I discovered his game, Wyvern, while looking for a way to play Dungeons and Dragons online. At the time, the most prominent feature of the game was its extensibility, via Java and Jython. I made a few game areas and wrote an introductory manual for the world editor tool. Although I never submitted any of my code, the desire to create custom items and monster behaviors was my primary motivation for learning to program.

The inspiration that his blog provides (and the prodding) is much less effective for me. I started a blog. It may have five posts.

</comment><comment><USER17> It was so great to read this post. It's a bit like an old friend moving back home after living far away for a while. I was always a little disappointed when I would see his blog title dimmed out in my RSS reader as I scrolled on to read things by less engaging bloggers. I think this is a side effect of Steve's blogging style: I feel like I know him personally because of the sheer amount of words he uses to communicate.

This post is a good reminder that these are _people_ you're talking to online (yes, even the "Internet famous"). They're just ordianry people who have the same feelings, needs, and wants as you. Things you say have real, tangible, even powerful effects in the real world. It's easy to forget that with all this virtual stuff in between.

</comment><comment><USER18> _I used to have lot of open, long-standing concerns about the future of programming and productivity, but my sabbatical last year finally brought me some clojure._

Mh, out of Steve Yegge's mouth, that's interesting to hear. I guess emacs is his tool of choice now¹ and Clojure's performance is pretty good from what I've heard.

¹ (Paraphrased: "Dynamic languages need better tools", see [http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-st...](http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-strike-back.html))

<comment><USER19> I've been wondering when he would get to clojure, given how much he has covered lisp and emacs, even going so far as to promote emacs because as "the last stronghold for lisp programmers". Given his involvement with foo camp, and his coverage of other dynamic languages, I thought at times his absence was partly explained just by finally finding something that seemed like such a close fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Steve, in case you are reading this, do consider getting on HN as well. We don't mind long (and opinionated) rants.

<comment><USER21> :-)

<comment><USER20> WOW! 800 days old account? ( _feels stupid for the suggestion_ ) That said, would be glad to see more of you around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Let me be the first to say it: Welcome back Steve.

<comment> brown9-2 _And now that everyone's completely forgotten who I am..._

Not one bit! I've been eagerly awaiting this day.

<comment><USER22> Indeed, now all we need is _why back. Oh and the old Zed Shaw.

<comment><USER23> I think he is the same guy because he "still gives a shit". Only, he is letting more and more of his code do the talk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I thought that Steve's previous analysis that having crazily long posts was part of why they had such a impact was spot on. I'm surprised and disapointed that he's considering consciously making posts shorter and more frequent.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder what happened to his Rhino on Rails project...I would love to hear a follow up on that.

<http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/06/rhino-on-rails.html>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QD9XQm_Jd4> (2008)

</comment><comment><USER26> If Steve reads this:

Requested blog post please: "What I have learned at Google".

Given your background/experience it would be interesting to read your thoughts on Google's engineering machine, assuming they let employees blog about it. So far I've seen quite a few entertaining writeups from Nooglers, but mostly college graduates. I wonder what Amazon veteran had to re-learn there.

<comment><USER27> More chance he'll read if you comment this on his blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good to have you back Steve!

No, not everyone had an issue with the length of your posts, quite the opposite - it was kind of fun to see a pleasantly small bar in the scrollbar knowing that the treat isn't ending any time soon.

Big fan, big fan here... I once declined a job offer from a company whose engineers never heard of you as I figured out during interviews.

</comment><comment><USER29> Did anyone else who read this title think "finger" was referring to the unix command line tool?

<comment><USER30> > Did anyone else who read this title think "finger" was referring to the unix > command line tool?

Finger predates unix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> We should be producing more of this kind of bloggers, just in case he doesn't come back the next time.

<comment><USER31> Or maybe, we should behave so that he doesn't leave in frustration the next time.

<comment><USER22> That wouldn't work - the few people who didn't behave then won't have any incentive to do so now, and the rest of us can't do anything about than.

But we can be nice to him, so that he realize that the great majority like what he is doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Somehow I feel that the Google doctor would have a pretty good grasp on different forms of RSI. Good that he got help relatively quickly and seems better. But he should really IMNSHO stop playing guitar - typing all day is enough damage to the fingers.

Personally, tuba playing pushed me over the edge, and the only choice I had was to stop working with computers and start teaching. RSI should be taken very, very seriously.

</comment><comment><USER33> In case anybody was wondering what was he playing, it's a brazilian classical music composer: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAg8VHuXNKU&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAg8VHuXNKU&feature=related) \- Choros nr1

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDc230BMy8Y&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDc230BMy8Y&feature=related) \- Choros nr10 (part 1)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GVWge4q8uc&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GVWge4q8uc&feature=related) \- Choros nr10 (part 2)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZnQj9yWTlo> \- Trenzinho Caipira

Well and what could you expect from one of the greatest composers coming from the Brazilian musical culture? I accidentally started watching the Proms and was completely obliterated by that performance of Choros nr10, I had never enjoyed classical music that way.

</comment><comment><USER34> I went back to Steve's list of recommended books, and I noticed that when I first read it I had read one of his recommendations, and now I'm up to eight. Probably my favorite tech blogger.

</comment><comment><USER35> Yegge plays Villa-Lobos? That's so cool. For those of you who skipped over that part of the post... listen to this etude and _tell_ me it's not badass: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxCR0aMeo8g> \-- and don't bail before the middle tremolo section at 2:00.

</comment><comment><USER36> Alright, so Yegge's back[1]. Who wants to take bets on when or if Spolsky will "un-retire"?

[1] I'm actually excited too!

</comment><comment><USER37> I liked his superlong posts.

</comment><comment><USER38> Glad to hear that. Steve Yegge's post I hold dearest to my heart are: Dynamic Languages Strike Back, Rhinos and Tigers and Rhino on Rails (for controversial reasons and the guts to do it more than anything else).

<comment><USER39> Those plus "Kingdom of Nouns".

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Steve is clearly bright and interesting. So it perplexes me that his blog is adorned with a huge pledge of allegiance to a politician.

*I'd react equally negatively if his blog had a huge Nader or W2004 button on it. I guess I just don't understand the desire people have to idealize authority figures.

<comment><USER41> So, haters...

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Hooray, time to carve out some time and brew a second cup!

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm being petty - but that's an obnoxiously large Obama '08 button.

I literally thought I was on the wrong site.

</comment><comment><USER44> TLDR: _"I'm back after a year's hiatus from blogging... ramble ramble ramble ... And now that I'm rested up, I believe I'm ready to start tech blogging again... in moderation, anyway. The rest and relaxation and research did wonders for me. I used to have lot of open, long-standing concerns about the future of programming and productivity, but my sabbatical last year finally brought me some clojure[0]."_

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1934356336?ie=UTF8&tag=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1934356336?ie=UTF8&tag=steveysblogra-20&link_code=wql&camp=212361&creative=380601)

(Nice affiliate link, but hey I'd do the same)

Is anyone else as torn about long blog posts as I am? On the one hand, I do appreciate good software writing. But I also appreciate concise expressivity, saying more with less. They shouldn't be, and aren't, mutually exclusive.

These days I feel like I'm forced to choose between sacrificing an hour of productive coding to read through a bunch of overly long blog posts at HN and proggit and evaluate whether they were worth reading or not.

<comment><USER44> Since when do we downmod just for disagreeing with a post? I wasn't trolling.

My concern isn't invalid. Others have also noticed:

Paul Graham: <http://paulgraham.com/selfindulgence.html>

Another good article: <http://fitnr.com/filtering-the-web-of-noise/>

Don't misunderstand, I <3 Yegge and am glad he's back. His writing taught me stuff that should have been covered in my undergraduate education, and I still refer new programmers to his 'Tour de Babel' essay.

But am I alone in wishing writers would cut to the chase a little more so as to help their readers reduce the info overload and the task of filtering through it quickly?

It's not hard to spend an entire day reading through only the high-quality tech blogs alone, and find, as Paul mentioned, that you did a lot of 'fake work' and very little real work.

<comment><USER45> In my opinion, there really aren't too many high-quality tech blogs (or maybe there are, and I'm just not aware of them).

Steve's stuff is lengthy -- but it's also not posted incredibly often (he's not a career blogger), and I have yet to read much by him that wasn't intellectually or creatively satisfying, and afaict that's rather rare for tech-bloggers.</comment></comment></comment>


New Android Market leaks, adds auto-download options - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/1/2531560/new-android-market-leaks-adds-auto-download-options

<comment><USER2> This is a good option. A great option could be to have it on a app-by-app basis

<comment><USER3> you can already turn on autoupdate for individual apps. It's the "just do it for all my apps" that's new.

<comment><USER2> wops! You're right :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Zhang Lei has Lunch with the FT - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6f160a50-f5fe-11e3-a038-00144feabdc0.html

<comment><USER2> Thanks for posting, but you should change the title to Zhang Lei instead of Zhang Le.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks -- unintentional typo. I don't think I have the power to change the title after posting.

<comment><USER3> We fixed it.</comment></comment></comment>


People Wearing Airpods Are Making It Weird for Everyone Else - <AUTHOR> https://pocket.co/xIq_jY?cta=1&src=ph <comment><USER2> URL should be [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/people-w...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/people- wearing-airpods-are-making-things-awkward-for)

Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19685046](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19685046)</comment>


Show HN: How much does Twitter owe me - <AUTHOR> http://howmuchdoestwitterowe.me/

<comment><USER2> This fails to explain by what logic would Twitter have to pay me/owe me for my tweets.

Are they selling my tweets? Are they asserting rights over what I've written? Maybe I've missed something, but there's no explanation.

<comment><USER3> It says it takes a minute to write a tweet so you would be paid to add that content hourly...

<comment><USER2> Ah. So this takes my no. of tweets, * (hourly/60) and feeds me back that number? Genius.

(Protip: if you estimate at 60$/h, it's 1$/tweet. You're welcome.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, exactly. They owe me $79,168.00

I'll let them know I take credit cards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.

</comment><comment><USER5> Internal Server Error! :(

</comment><comment><USER3> Internal server error

<comment><AUTHOR> Twitters API limits quick in quickly. Who knew. Sorting it :)</comment></comment>


Instapaper Outage Cause and Recovery - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/making-instapaper/instapaper-outage-cause-recovery-3c32a7e9cc5f#.l6eb66dra <comment><USER2> This has been posted _at least NINETEEN times_ in the past 18 hours.

(19 still survive, anyway... _not_ counting any flagged down as dupes:)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Instapaper%20Outage%20Cause%20...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Instapaper%20Outage%20Cause%20and%20Recovery&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)</comment>


It doesn't have to be crazy at work - <AUTHOR> https://basecamp.com/books/calm <comment><USER3> The workaholic side of me used to like the crazy but the aging me likes a better work/life balance.

I'm British but recently moved to Oslo, Norway. Until recently I worked at a start-up incubator where there was talk about the 'extreme' start up work life. For Norwegians that meant that they left the office at 5pm instead of 3:30 or 4pm. By 6pm the hot desk office space was normally empty and the lights switched themselves off.

It's a tiny industry here and no-one is looking to build the next facebook, they're just looking to do interesting work whilst also having a good life.

<comment><USER4> > It's a tiny industry here and no-one is looking to build the next facebook, > they're just looking to do interesting work whilst also having a good life.

This is something I miss in all the "Europe doesn't have the next Google, Europe doesn't have the next Facebook" discussions: Is this really a problem? We could if we wanted, but why would we want? Working like crazy for .. what?

<comment><USER5> These are not the same. Yes, not having Google-like companies, even with their recent turn for the worse, is a problem. Not having a Facebook reflects rather positively on us.

<comment><USER6> What do you mean? Household names like IKEA? Service workhorses like SAP? Car manufacturers?

Huge data centers like OVH? Pioneers like Nokia, Ericsson and Siemens used to be? (in some ways still are)

Or monopolist companies specifically?

Really, nobody wants Acme Inc. Even if its logo is painted with fancy colors and it promotes youth culture. Google's main business is monopolizing internet advertising and data collection...

<comment><USER7> > Huge data centers like OVH? Pioneers like Nokia, Ericsson and Siemens used > to be? (in some ways still are)

The US makes appa that suck down 5MB to display a status update; Scandanavia builds the equipment that makes it possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think a lot of craziness in the industry is caused by a rush to get rich. That doesn't seem to be on the table for Basecamp employees, who get fixed salaries by grade, no real stake, etc, and apparently no plan to go public.

I think the following is also relevant, since work stress/craziness is about much more than workload: [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pressure- proof/20130...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pressure- proof/201308/six-sources-burnout-work)

<comment><USER9> Yes, this is a good point. DHH had some rants recently on Twitter about Brian Acton selling out his company to Facebook. I found it interesting that the lifetime financial security for all WhatsApp employees wasn't mentioned.

It's not clear to me how DHH gets the money for his auto racing hobby. Perhaps it has to be crazy at work for others to have a shot at hobbies like this, especially if you aren't the founders.

<comment><USER10> > It's not clear to me how DHH gets the money for his auto racing hobby.

That unclarity can be solved pretty easily. David is one of the two partners of Basecamp (formerly 37signals). That company delivers a service in the project management space, basecamp.com, and some other web applications. They charge customers a fair amount, and they have thousands and thousands of customers, mainly in the SME segment. With around 50 well-paid employees, a nice office and significant (leased/owned) infrastructure, their costs are still way less than their revenue, so they make a healthy profit. I guess that profit is paid out as dividends to the stakeholders of the company: at last David, Jason and Jeff Bezos (for a minority share). Those dividends are sufficient to buy a nice house, own some sports cars, and enjoy a racing hobby.

Additionally, Jason and David have written some popular books. The author's share of those sales could pay for some other interests (photography, watches) as well.

<comment><USER11> According to the bottom of the web page, they have over 2.8 million accounts. That is especially remarkable since an account is usually a company. Basecamp does not charge per user. The price is $99 per month --- although for nonprofits it's 10% off, and for teachers and students it's free.

They don't say how many of the 2,838,046 accounts are discounted or free, but I doubt it's a sizable percentage. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that it brings it all the way down to the equivalent of only 2.5 million full- priced accounts. That's about $3 billion a year.

<comment><USER10> [https://basecamp.com/customers](https://basecamp.com/customers) mentions "100,000+ companies rely on Basecamp to run their business." Since it does not mention "1,000,000+ companies", I think that "2.8 million accounts" refers to users, not companies.

Although current pricing for Basecamp 3 is $99/month (for unlimited amount of projects), previous Basecamp versions (Classic and 2) had other pricing models. Significantly cheaper when you were managing less projects, a bit more expensive for more than 100 projects, IIRC.

Basecamp / 37signals also has paying users for some other applications, e.g., Highrise (CRM, 10,000+ organizations, but closed for new signups), Campfire (instant messaging, closed for new signups), Backpack (intranet for businesses, closed for new signups). They continue to provide those services though, "until the end of the internet" :-)

So, in short... it's not as simple as 2.5 million times 99 USD.

Ignoring paid accounts for the other products, and severely underestimating the number of accounts at the 99 dollar level as 75,000, the monthly revenue could be 7.5 million dollar per month minimally, or 90 million per year. I would guess the actual number is twice that. Either way, it's impressive by any comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> honest question: is work that crazy for most people in the software industry? it really doesn't square with my personal experience.

from what i've seen, most people work 10ish to 6ish under very relaxed conditions like eg a comfortable lunch and a few breaks during the day. i've also noticed that people tend to be available online outside of their work hours, but nobody really expects that nor gets mad when someone isn't.

this was true for all of our employees when i was CTO/co-founder and also for us founders most of the time. this was also true when i worked at a Series A startup and it is true in my team at Google, and it seems it'd be similar in most other teams, too.

note that i'm not taking a stance on whether what i described above is good or bad, it's just what i've observed.

<comment><USER13> No one is outright pressuring me to work long hours, but if I had 8 hours of real work to do, I'd have to work 16. Business hours are fully saturated with bullshit, mostly open office distractions and anxiety.

My jaw drops with envy when I see the impossibly huge allotments of personal space people get in more traditional office spaces. My dad's cube farm felt like a palace. Fortunately I have two monitors side by side and management doesn't seem willing to challenge that. Those with only one monitor inevitably get their seats compressed until that's their entire workspace.

My colleagues assure me it's no better anywhere else in tech and that if I feel strongly about it, the only thing to do is start my own company.

Meanwhile the company continues to throw money and perks at us. Anything and everything but quiet workspace. Actually there are quiet rooms on every floor! But those are for medication only, no laptops allowed. They came _so close_ to getting it.

<comment><USER14> My tech company has individual desks in the open office. I don't think this environment you describe is the norm but I don't have numbers. That just sounds like bad management.

<comment><USER13> We do too, nominally, but the headcount kept growing and the real estate didn't.

<comment><USER14> Ah yeah we're getting there. We just moved to this bigger office too. Frustrating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The sentiment here is a response to a minority opinion that has deeper pockets than the majority opinion.

It is interesting because VC math forces a level of intensity that Basecamp doesn't have to contend with. So in one sense, the message can be interpreted as "don't take VC funding".

The more obvious interpretation is that, regardless of financing, work should never dominate your life. But this is can be argued against, since some forms of financing like venture take away your control of work intensity.

The act of ceding voting power in your company is a step closer towards the work style that Jason and DHH are protesting.

<comment><USER16> "some forms of financing like venture take away your control of work intensity."

How is that? I find it unlikely any VC would go to court just because founder insists on sane working hours for employees. Or is there some leverage here I'm completely missing?

<comment><USER15> I don't have hard evidence, and certainly not every VC would act this way. There is a great episode of Startup where they seek additional funding and eventually settle on an investor with a long time horizon. YC itself is known for having a longer horizon than most.

But for VCs with an aggressive stance towards working longer, there are many subtle ways to stop supporting a founder that goes against their working culture assumptions.

Increased combatitiveness in board meetings, reduced support in tapping their network for key hires, and increased attention paid toward advising competitors in their portfolio are a few that come to mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I admire these guys for their values. I wish more companies were like this.

I also understand that teaching how the sausage is made is a big part of their marketing strategy. That creates a little bit of a conflict where it's easier not to show the warts than it is to talk about how awesome things are. Companies that market in this fashion do the rest of the world a great service. They show us how things _could be_. We need to understand and acknowledge that conflict to keep a balanced view.

The only thing I found missing from the nice essay full of pleasing things to read was this: _we do this to ourselves_. It's not some evil corporate manager-types, although things can look like that. You can get just as stressed out because your stack is whack as you can because your schedule is whack. The schedule is this "external" thing you can yell at. The stack just wheedles away at you, minute-by-minute.

I've also seen a lot of successful teams slowly turn the screws -- on themselves. Ego takes a lot of forms. A little success can make you want a lot more.

I really, really like the calm competence view of creating technology. The best folks I've worked with were smart, friendly, easy-going, and calm. The worst ones were smart, self-centered, authoritarian, and chaotic. Oddly enough, people who aren't-so-smart fall equally in both camps. I've seen some really good teams where nobody looked like they knew a lot. They just made it work and had fun doing it. I've also seen teams that should be building the next Mars base that weren't able to pick the toppings for their next pizza order.

<comment><USER18> _I wish more companies were like this._

I suspect a great many companies are like this. I have never worked anywhere that any of that particular hit-list was expected. There's a bubble in which all this is "normal", but that bubble is small.

<comment><USER17> I had a team a year ago in SV where I had to walk-off the gig for a couple of days.

They were putting in 60+ hours a week, sleeping at work.

I tried to counsel the CEO and CIO, both of whom had been quite successful previously and were determined to "win at all costs" this time around.

They both resisted the procedure.

So I left. I told them that once they came back to being sane again, I'd be happy to come back and help them not do that again, but I wasn't going to hang out and assist them in this insanity.

My guess is that it depends on whether you count by companies or developers. By companies it's probably quite prevalent. By developers? Not so much. But these are the kinds of things companies don't admit to themselves or others. On the flip side of this, there's a ton of apathy in this business as well. Neither extreme is healthy.

<comment><USER19> Did you hear from that team lately in regards of how they're doing? Do they still put in 60+ hours a week or did they switch to a more balanced work life?

<comment><USER20> If company expects 60+ hours per week, and not just in some rare bursts, they will almost never come to senses and scale back to some normal work/life balance. You just need to leave.

<comment><USER21> And if there's rare bursts, then someone made a mistake.

A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Work steady hours, and the "output" becomes predictable (this is what agile methodologies are also about - predictability), which allows for better planning. Working 60+ hours means the output becomes very unpredictable. I mean people will crack and either leave or become overworked at that point, and now there's an even bigger problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I read Rework and Remote (previous Jason/DHH books) an although full of common-sense ideas that I applauded, they were quite similar in terms of content.

This new book seems to be kind of a mix of those previous books.

<comment><USER22> Some people still haven't heard the message.

It's possible that a new book released at a new time can reach a new(?)audience that will have he potential to adjust their behavior.

<comment><USER19> The message may be heard, but putting it into practice is the more difficult task in my opinion. Changing a whole company's (either big or small) policy regarding meetings/working hours/etc... is quite a challenge

Still, the new book's cover may attract an audience that is not familiar with DHH/Jason/Basecamp's opinions on work/life balance.

<comment><USER3> Yes, company dynamics are really complex and this book will only have an effect if the people reading it are the company leaders. But they're also reading "10 habits of successful CEOs" articles that tell them to wake up at 4am to send emails!

Ultimately correlation isn't causation. Working 40 hours doesn't guarantee success by itself and neither does waking up at 4am.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Sustained exhaustion is not a badge of honor, it's a mark of stupidity.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Many young workers don't yet know this and that's likely why companies like FB and the like prefer them. Once one picks up on this and the fact that companies don't care about their employees, one can relax and pick up much better jobs (assuming one has a pick at all). Ruining one's health for a minor bump in the employer's profits (if that) is indeed extremely stupid. Especially when you consider the cost of healthcare and the almost certainty of losing it (in the US) if one gets sick enough to be unable to work. This is the kind of thing that should be taught in high school.

<comment><USER24> From what I hear that is not a norm in FB or Google, maybe in certain teams. They actually have good work-life balance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Few people would disagree with having a healthier work/life balance, but you need to be careful to not conflate the approach with the success of the authors. People who've gone from nothing to becoming wealthy by not having meetings, working less, and maintaining a relaxing lifestyle are the exception, not the rule. If you want a shot at being as wealthy as they are, their advice is not going to help your odds, although you may well have a better life by other measures.

<comment><USER26> > If you want a shot at being as wealthy as they are, their advice is not > going to help your odds, although you may well have a better life by other > measures.

Your point about not conflating their lifestyles with their financial security is well taken. Their point is not about wealth but about health, not about money but about life. Rather than money grossly gathered, they propose a life well lived.

However, it's important to keep in mind the obverse, which is that one should not strictly dissociate their lifestyles from their financial security. Recognizing that lifestyle and wealth are uncorrelated (or loosely correlated) avoids the facile prediction that overwork will yield wealth when, in reality, overwork most often yields a miserable, dissatisfying life without extravagant wealth.

<comment><USER25> _Rather than money grossly gathered, they propose a life well lived._

Agreed, but I find such advice feels weird from people who _are_ extremely wealthy.

It's a bit like if a top chef did a book on cooking healthy meals - it might be packed with great practices, but the advice would come from a place of advantage that could cause blind spots in giving advice to someone with limited access to fresh groceries, a tight budget, and perhaps several dependents with varying tastes.

 _when, in reality, overwork most often yields a miserable, dissatisfying life without extravagant wealth._

I can't really _disagree_ as such, but while I'm only one data point (who comes from a non-rich, working class background) I can't think of anyone I know personally who worked _really hard_ and that made their life functionally _worse_ , although I guess dissatisfaction is hard to measure from the outside.

I certainly know people who've _reached a certain point_ and then improved their lives by working less _thereafter_ , but I still think any advice to work less or chill out early in your career is pretty dangerous ground for younger people to consider.

<comment><USER26> > I certainly know people who've reached a certain point and then improved > their lives by working less thereafter, but I still think any advice to work > less or chill out early in your career is pretty dangerous ground for > younger people to consider.

That's a really good way of putting it, something I hadn't really considered.

I still think it's too easy to find people who work so hard they suffer anxiety, sleeplessness, and ill health all while their personal relationships are neglected and/or attenuated.

It seems clear there's a difficult balance to be struck between living well and living large (so to speak) and advice to the young and inexperienced from those who are successful and accomplished should always be judged critically.

[This is a bit off-topic but my ability to upvote and downvote was nerfed long ago. I still do so, but my voting seems to have no affect on individual users' karma scores. I sometimes wonder if it's because I tend to upvote thoughtful responses to my own comments.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've only ever worked in the UK public sector (almost-a-civil-servant), at two places which were partly government funded, partly academic and partly a business. I've heard lots about this "proud to overwork" style culture but never seen much of it; not from most of my friends either.

Is this a cultural thing, i.e. we're not so proud about overworking ourselves in the UK?

Or is it because I'm outside of the tech bubble -- my work as a software engineer is mostly supporting science and research rather than pushing business products through the door before the next VC funding round?

Or is it just that we are generally more relaxed in an academic environment, where the salaries aren't so lucrative but we get appreciable amounts of time off?

<comment><USER28> I'm also in the UK and my experience is similar.

Part of that may be because I've mostly worked as a contractor, where you tend to be a replaceable cog providing 8 hours of service a day. But most of the permanent employees also went home around 6pm.

I don't think the consequences for going home at the end of your workday are very severe. You don't need to stay late if production isn't down. If production is down at 6pm that shouldn't have happened and you need to adjust your process. At my last permanent role I spent a lot of time telling people to stop deploying the daily build after 3pm. (I understand that there's project managers pressuring them, but that doesn't justify ruining anyone's evening.)

If you can't get your work done during work hours you should fix that, not work longer hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If there is anything I can criticise about Basecamp it would be their Graphics Design Style and Layout. First being too cartoonish and second being something isn't quite right.

I think DHH is kind of visionary and philosophical, you might not agree with every thing about his coding style and Ruby usage. But a lot of things he said tends to make lots of sense from a grand perspective. Idea / Concept Compression, working style, life etc.

Unfortunately not everyone is as well off as him and gets to do whatever he wants. The industry, not just IT but in every other sector in general ( As a matter of fact I don't even know which industry isn't crazy apart form Government civil servants jobs ), are all crazy for more hours and more work.

<comment><USER30> > First being too cartoonish and second being something isn't quite right.

What do you think is the significance of that for Basecamp? Poor branding? Poor conversion? What's the business impact?

<comment><USER29> I don't have a number to say as a percentage, but it definitely have some impact. Not the first time I precent it to upper management and Asana won purely based on "looks". ( You see, those in the management don't actually "DO" anything, they look at things and if they dislike it they will disprove it, whether a tools is decent to use is not their problem )

I felt Basecamp are aiming at different market to Asana. Basecamp are for consultants or freelances with many clients. Asana are aiming at SMEs and Enterprise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think Basecamp reflects what happens when smart, sensible people without a chip on their shoulder, simply live their life.

They're not stepping on heads to get ahead. They're not in the business of 'motivating' unhappy people who don't like what they do, into fulfilling quotas.

It's great. It reminds me of this coffee-shop that charges 10$ for a slice of pie. It's not busy, polite service, tasty pie. All the while I am well aware that such places will always remain niche.

I can't help but feel a little sad, and yet, everything seems to point to people being fine with McDonalds, Kardashians, and the opposite of what Basecamp preaches.

<comment><USER32> > ...without a chip on their shoulder...

I presume you don't follow DHH on social media ;)

<comment><USER33> What does he say? I follow him on Insta and it's all cars and office furniture as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER10> Just follow him on Medium or Twitter. There are hardly cars, houses or office furniture there :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> By the description here, it seems (like "Peopleware") that this is a book that doesn't offer individual contributors anything they don't already know, and it would be great if we could get our _managers_ to read it, but our managers won't read it, or if they do, they'll say "It sounds nice but we can't do any of that here because ..." Is it?

</comment><comment><USER32> At least the website is readable. The email I got yesterday was white on red and gave me a headache after about 30 seconds of reading!

<comment><USER35> You can even see the content without loading a million third party scripts. A lot could learn from this wizardry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> For a really revolutionary way of organizing a work place read

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_\(book\))

See also: [https://semcostyle.org/](https://semcostyle.org/)

</comment><comment><USER37> I guess they do not mind but looking at the growth graph at the bottom seems like basecamp is plateauing.

<comment><USER32> And? If they're a comfortable size and bringing in good money with a good work/life balance and job security like they lead people to believe then fair play to them.

<comment><USER37> I just noticed.

While they talked about comfortable size etc. all the time they were still explosively growing. It will be interesting to watch how they manage if their products really plateau.

I wish them all the best and I can well imagine that they just manage to launch something new with explosive growth where they can feel cozy and comfortable sized.

<comment><USER38> I thought I read somewhere where they actually stopped all hiring for their company. It may have been this year even.

<comment><USER11> Yes, that's right, [https://m.signalvnoise.com/things-are-going-so-well-were- doi...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/things-are-going-so-well-were-doing-a- hiring-freeze-5f66372a4214) (January 31), but now they're hiring a data analyst, [https://m.signalvnoise.com/basecamp-is-hiring-a-data- analyst...](https://m.signalvnoise.com/basecamp-is-hiring-a-data- analyst-f15fbfc153ba) (September 21).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A lot of the things the authors mention are standard in Europe. In Europe you have 25 days of paid vacation. Parental leave of > 6 months. Working times < 40 hours. 5 day work weeks. Payed sick leave. Works councils, etc.

</comment><comment><USER39> DHH, that's a name I haven't seen in a while.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think it's more that people say they are much busier than they really are because it makes them seem important

</comment><comment><USER41> I like the fact they give away free stickers to promote the book! I think it is a great initiative.

<comment><USER3> Maybe other people could do that too and we could all start putting stickers on our laptops ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I find it amusing that a uber successful and smart person writing some common sense stuff as if it is new. Everything he says is true, but what is missing here is that much of the world's population is not in a position to negotiate. In many places it is simply _put up or leave_. How much choice does a single parent or a 60 year old person with no special skills have? Those of us in software have it relatively better than the rest, but it is still the same, just on different level.

 _Over the last 18 years we've been working at making Basecamp a calm company_

Awesome. But this is one rare exception. Not many companies are going to do this, _even if they can_.

The only way to fix this is saner laws, unions etc.

<comment><USER43> >The only way to fix this is saner laws, unions etc.

I'm in a union (not by choice, but because they sign off on my work permit renewal forms). They don't represent me. I once almost needed to strike for an issue totally unrelated to anyone I worked with.

I'm not saying unions don't work, necessarily. But I do think "unions are the answer" is an oversimplification. Like any organization, they can be run well or poorly. If software engineers were unionized, they'd be complaining about bad union policies.

<comment><USER42> Fair enough. I should've phrased it as "one of the ways to fix..."

I just wanted to say that we can't expect companies to suddenly care for their employees. Basecamp is an exception and a very rare one. Most companies just don't care.

<comment><USER43> Yep, totally agree with all that. The way I'd really like to see is that people with this ethos of care towards employees start companies. And as seems to be Basecamp's position, that starts with funding. If you're not beholden to investors demanding certain growth goals, then you have the freedom to cultivate this kind of environment. My opinion is the problem's not collective bargaining or regulation, but that most companies default to taking money from investors for quick growth (which is then expected to be maintained) rather than growing slowly and organically from customer purchases like Basecamp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel disheartened at the sad state of affairs when 8 hour days, 40 hours per week can be sold as something pseudo- revolutionary. This industry is in dire need of some humble pie, and for employees to realize, to a greater extent than today, that they're workers, not business partners.

Do people really think that a new plumbing firm calling itself a startup would enable them to hire cheap plumbers working 50% unpaid overtime for a half- arsed profit-share promise that maybe this new posh area will cause a great expansion in the future? No, the plumbers would know they're getting shafted.

Anyway, maybe this book can be a step in a humbling direction. The last two books were indeed filled with a lot of common sense that should be repeated.

<comment><USER45> I suspect overworking is more prevelant than you're acknowledging for salaried workers. For instance, I'm a high school teacher. I and many of my colleagues are routinely working 50-60 hrs/wk. If you're not being billed for hours, why wouldn't you keep expanding your workers' obligations until the cracks appear?

<comment><USER44> "If you're not being billed for hours, why wouldn't you keep expanding your workers' obligations until the cracks appear?"

I'm amazed by the sibling comments "benefit of the doubt" view even with the hindsight of the game industry, among others, that uses this fact systematically. There's obviously skewed incentives to over-scope when the crunches are culturally normalized together with costs offloaded to the employees since there's no OT pay. The incentives to the individual manager is obvious too. No costs to report for their own incompetence, instead their feature list is completed - and maybe their bonus or promotion goal reached.

Where I live this no overtime pay scheme is usually compensated by an extra vacation week per year. Like clockwork however - every single year - <USER2> credit is collected through overtime multiple times over.

This will be repeated as long as they can get away with it because there's simply so much money to make from it.

<comment><USER46> As long as work is required to survive, employers will be calling the shots. They don't have to employ you but you have to work. So they will do whatever they can legally get away with to exploit this and keep as much as they can for themselves.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What if everyone worked remotely? - <AUTHOR> http://www.darkcoding.net/behaviour/what-if-everyone-worked-remotely/

<comment><USER2> Suburbia would have to disappear - at least for those who can afford to not live there - because when we were spending 16 hours a day there we'd realize what a terrible place it is to live. Big cities would still be desirable places to live - they still have theatres and concert halls and museums and art galleries - in fact they might become much more so, as car ownership became less common. At the same time, since leisure travel is a much poorer source of income for mass transit than commuters are, rail and bus services would decline - so overall transport would be poorer, and the gap between rich and poor - city and country - would widen. Small towns would shrink and vanish, because many of them exist solely to support one or two industries in that town.

</comment><comment><USER3> If everyone who really could work remotely did so, nothing much would change because most jobs require a physical presence.</comment>


US trademarks require licensed attorney – online services? - <AUTHOR> We have applied for a US trademark, but we got a reply that we need to be represented by a US licensed attorney for the application to be approved. Are there any online services we can use? <comment><USER2> A friend of mine applied for a (tm) a few months ago. US PTO contacted him by email once suggesting he not use a color for the logo he wanted (tm) protection on, and that by leaving logo black, he could then use any color in the future without having to (tm) each color. No lawyer needed, he has his (tm) so no, a lawyer of any stripe is not required for (tm) application. I'd read very carefully what US PTO sent you -- NOLO's Trademark: Legal Care for Your Business & Product Name book is a great resource for doing it yourself. Again, no, you are not required to use a lawyer of any stripe to submit a trademark application and have it issued after US PTO does the search. Make sure you're going straight to US PTO and not using a third party to do the work.

<comment><AUTHOR> A recent change now require foreign applicants to have a US attorney: [https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws- regulations/trademark-r...](https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws- regulations/trademark-rule-requires-foreign-applicants-and-registrants-have- us) According to one of the spam emails we have received, the new rules went into effect Aug. 3rd 2019.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> LegalZoom.com or RocketLawyer.com</comment>


Google buys social mobile startup Jaiku - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/09/google-buys-social-mobile-startup-jaiku/

<comment><AUTHOR> Was Twitter too expensive? I think they priced themselves out of an acquisition by going after the $5m. Jaiku probably sold for less than Twitter's Series A.

</comment><comment><USER2> Google is like a 1-company bubble, where instead of the acquirer being the general public investing in an IPO, now it's the general public investing in Google, who are spending the public's money on daft startups.

That's a pretty clever workaround to Sar-Ox.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another proof that the first to market is not always the winner. In case Friendster wasn't proof enough.

</comment><comment><USER4> Maybe Google does not want to deal with Evan Williams a second time

</comment><comment><USER5> I bet google does'nt want a rails app.

<comment><AUTHOR> I seriously doubt that. It probably came down to price.

Almost all apps that Google buys have to be rewritten anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe Jaiku is technically superior.</comment>


Learn C The Hard Way - <AUTHOR> http://c.learncodethehardway.org/

<comment><USER2> The parent website has links to all three books: Learn Python the Hard Way, Learn Ruby the Hard Way, and Learn C the Hard Way.

<http://learncodethehardway.org/></comment>


Are academics adopting GitHub? - <AUTHOR> http://statwonk.github.io/blog/2013/12/15/are-academics-adopting-github/

<comment><USER2> Wondering what would be neccessary for non-academic authors to pick up Github with markdown/prose.</comment>


A Need to Walk (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://craigmod.com/essays/a_need_to_walk/ <comment><USER2> Walking is one of the most overlooked forms of physical activity. It costs nothing, burns calories, allows you to multi-task, all the while doubling as a mode of transportation that doesn't leave you sweaty or needing time to recover.

I was about to say that not being able to walk to work - either because you live in a car-centric suburb, or because it's dangerous - is a nigh criminal failure of city planning.

On second thoughts, though, that's probably unfair. It's probably a case of demand driving planning, not the other way around. I can't blame city planners if people mostly prefer a large house in the suburbs, and are willing to pay for it with a 45-minute commute.

<comment><USER3> Even in the suburbs they could make neighborhoods more walkable. I never understand why US neighborhoods don't have small walkways that connect one street to the other. I am not sure if it's just thoughtless or active opposition against walking.

<comment><USER4> What some friends remember most about their grad student days in the States is having the police called on them because they were walking around their neighbourhood. "We have a car. It's in our garage." was their defence when grilled by the responding officer.

(don't even ask about their anecdote about after-dark US walking etiquette)

<comment><USER5> Please share if you can, I had no idea there was a night walking etiquette in the US

<comment><USER6> It depends on the state. Texas is a good example of a state with property protection laws that differ at night.

[https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of- property](https://www.dougmurphylaw.com/defense-of-property)

If I were walking at night in Texas, I'd be sure to always stay on clearly marked public sidewalks and paths.

<comment><USER7> An interesting article on the Scottish "right to roam" written from a US perspective:

[https://www.backpacker.com/stories/scotland-right-to- roam](https://www.backpacker.com/stories/scotland-right-to-roam)

<comment><USER4> and (for germanophones and machine translation users) an article on US "no trespassing" written from a german swiss perspective:

[https://tageswoche.ch/allgemein/das-land-der-grossen- freihei...](https://tageswoche.ch/allgemein/das-land-der-grossen-freiheit/) (the caption on the "survivors will be shot again" sign is "they're serious": Die meinen das ernst.)

relevant law clause in english: [https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified- compilation/19070042/...](https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified- compilation/19070042/index.html#a699)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Author here. Shameless (but relevant) plug — I write a weekly newsletter on walking in Japan called Ridgeline. You can find the archives here:

[https://craigmod.com/ridgeline/](https://craigmod.com/ridgeline/)

<comment><USER9> I really like your not SMS but SMS experiment. This one way flow of messages into artifact could be a really good model for social network interaction for community projects.

<comment><USER8> Thanks, agree; looking to expand on it later this year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The thing I miss the most about working in an office is my walking commute. Walking 1.75 miles each way to and from work was a great way for me to clear my head and recenter myself on what I need to get done—or set that aside so I could be present at home.

I look forward to returning to this routine post-COVID. In the mean time, I've taken up running. It's better in some ways and worse in others. I expect I'll keep running post-COVID, and just layer the walking on top of that.

<comment><USER11> I also enjoy (require) my morning walk. 4.5 km through the streets of Ho Chi Minh City. I do my best problem-solving whilst walking, and I know I am not the only one. Check out this excellent site on the habits of creative people: [https://dailyroutines.typepad.com](https://dailyroutines.typepad.com) (now a book at [https://amzn.to/2Pb4bJB](https://amzn.to/2Pb4bJB)).

Waking in HCM can be hardcore. I always travel with a shirt to change into when I arrive, and go through several pairs of boots per year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Walking is part of my daily work routine.

Usually around 2~3pm I go out for a ~45 minute walk. I use this time to think about work related problems, solving them in my head as I go. Sometimes a walk can be much longer, if I'm stuck at a particularly difficult problem.

I consider the walk routine as work, so I also charge my customers for this time. They are OK with that though, since they understand that thinking about their problems is what they pay me for.

Unfortunately I can't walk from home to my office, it's too far, so I ride my bicycle. The bike ride (circa 20 minutes) is perfect for clearing my head after the work day, and switch from work-mode to relax-mode.

</comment><comment><USER9> Rambling around Japan can feel a bit like playing an RPG. Some times you really do come across abandoned shrines, home to wild animals, and with caches of pole weapons and money inside.

</comment><comment><USER13> After living in Germany (originally from the big city in Texas), I've come to realize how valuable it is for a city to be walkable.

I really like being able to walk out of my door and reach anywhere I need to on foot, especially when there's a lot of beautiful nature around. I usually walk in the evenings for at least an hour (outside of any walking I might do in the day to go to the store or such) as a way to relax.

</comment><comment><USER14> After a few months of country walking, going back to city walking felt like a shock. So many people around, forcing me to make myself smaller, more brisk, more tense.

There are ways to regain relaxed movement even in a city, though. Shooting hoops / rebounds / jumpshots for half an hour every day is amazing. It changed my whole way of moving and being in a space.

</comment><comment><USER15> >> _Moses famously parted an entire sea to take a walk with a few friends._

:D

<comment><USER4> 40 years makes for a long less-than-urban flânerie :)

What are the modern equivalents of the ancient greek philosophers' venues?

The Academy was an olive grove owned by Plato, so it would be an example of an institution whose endowment was identical with its campus (and the modern equivalent would be a school in a penthouse, funded by the rents from apartments below and retail on the ground floor?)

The Lyceum [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatetic_school#Background](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatetic_school#Background) appears to have been a multi-use public park. Did Aristotle adopt the peripatetic lecture style because he enjoyed it, or did the Lyceum have intermittently patrolling Athenian rent-a-cops who encouraged his auditors to "move along now" every so often?

Stoics met in a stoa, so the modern equivalent might be a "strip mall philosopher."

Diogenes' tub might be a rude structure of cardboard under an overpass, or at best a cast-off camping tent. (as the SDFs in Paris have)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Coincidentally just reading this after a 2km walk... free exercise! Good way to see some new sights too :)</comment>


United Airlines Domestic Flights Grounded for 2 Hours by Computer Outage - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/all-united-airlines-domestic-flights-grounded-computer-outage-n710596 <comment><USER2> The US airline industry has a serious problem with these outages. By my count, 4 major airlines have been hit with system-wide computer-related outages in the last year (southest, jetblue, delta, united).

This article goes into some detail of why it happens: [http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/08/technology/delta-airline- com...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/08/technology/delta-airline-computer- failure). It seems like human error and fragile computer systems are the biggest issues.

<comment><USER3> If the datacenters are really too complex for the people running them to understand, I would expect failures like this to drive the airlines towards AWS, Azure, or some similar service.

<comment><USER4> I'm not advocating that it is ok, but I am sure these airline systems are super old and wouldn't be surprised if they use IBM DB2 or similar ancient database technology. Moving to the cloud is not a trivial task for these sorts of mission critical antiquated systems.

<comment><USER5> It's a legacy story like none other, in fact. The predecessor/origins of SABRE is IBM's Airline Control Program (ACP). When I worked for IBM years ago I heard many stories of how difficult it was to try an modernize to a newer system because of absurd complexity, but just as much because the whole airline industry became so inextricably bound to the legacy:

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

<comment><USER6> I'm currently doing consulting work for That Major Australian Airline and, while I'm rather high up the stack, you do get a sense of the amount of legacy that's built into everything and the monumental effort it would be to migrate all this old stuff to newer infra. I mean, AFAICT there's no database/service to _query_ flights - you have to register a web hook to receive flight data and store it yourself.

New projects are cloud-first, and more and more stuff gets migrated or replaced with equivalents which run in whatever cloud provider. But I can't even imagine how the replacements for all these old legacy services would go down.

<comment><USER7> They used to run on Tandem NonStops with a dual DC setup in Sydney and Newcastle. Those were the days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Currently sitting on a plane at O'Hare, can't get to gate because they won't let any planes leave to clear a spot for my plane. What a nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have no reason to believe that there's any malice involved here.

I also think that incidents like this might become more common as the state of cyber warfare progresses. As engineers, we should take care to build secure software, especially when that software underlies important systems. We should impress upon non-technical management the importance of doing so, even if it may take a little more time or money in the short term.

</comment><comment><USER10> Waiting in SLC terminal. Crew has to be off the clock in an hour. Not likely getting home tonight.

<comment><USER11> I got stuck in SLC two Sundays ago. Hotel tonight should have decent options. If you end up in town, the place will be dead. Bourbon House is decent and serves food late.

<comment><USER12> Isn't Sundance going on now? That might overflow into SLC?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Stuck on ground in plane at ORD, just got an update that the "mainframes" are starting to come back online.

EDIT: We're now about to take off.

<comment><USER14> Uh, they aren't using mainframes.

10:1, Linux fail.

<comment><USER15> They most certainly are. The primary systems running all the major US airlines are all mainframe at least in part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This doesn't surprise me. US airlines seem like breeding grounds for management silos and the technology is going to reflect that, no matter how much you spend.

<comment><USER17> When's the last time you heard a great software/IT engineer go "You know what I really want to do? Work for an Airlines company. It will be sweet!"

Yeah, that's part of the problem.

<comment><USER18> No, the problem is the airlines don't compensate or treat their engineers well enough to make anyone think "I really want to work for an airline".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> May this never happen to the Tesla fleet. As hesitant as I am about self driving cars, this would be an almost irreparable setback.

And it's happened twice in my recent memory to our air fleets...

<comment><USER20> Why would it happen? Teslas are not centrally managed / scheduled / booked.

The planes themselves could fly - it's the other things that failed.

<comment><USER19> They are centrally managed, though. They are authorized to run over the Tesla network, and they get patches from a centralized source.

Theoretically the cars would be mechanically sound to drive, but couldn't due to problems with the software.</comment></comment></comment>