Ask HN: How to be a more diligent programmer - <AUTHOR> After 2 spending 2 years in an enterprise software firm, I left for a startup. The new gig is an eye opener. I get a LOT of code review comments. While some were about styling and conventions and I no longer make those mistakes, others are more about design/bugs. I'm glad that I have someone who reviews them and gives me constructive feedback. What concerns me is that I repeat some mistakes and I often get the feeling that I'm not careful/diligent enough and let things slip through - this is after my 'careful' self review of my pull request. Some of the issues I struggle with:
1. Missed use cases. Goal was to do X when Y is the input. But I forgot that Z also could be an input.
2. Passing around entire objects between methods instead of just their id in the db
3. Not using existing util function. I either forget that there's a util function for this, or I'm not aware that there's a util function for this.
4. General lousiness. Missing to mention all params in the docstring, and similar stuff
5. Desire to be regarded as fast. I see an existing method that could be refactored - I skip refactoring it because my priority is to ship my feature right now. In another instance, I copied a few existing methods to my new class because moving them to an abstract class and then re-using them would have been too much work, since I might have to fix the tests as well. There's no pressure on me to work faster from any stakeholder
6. A general tendency to minimize work. Refactor existing methods even though I'm not touching them? Work. Read up on how our deployment works even though I don't really have to know it? Not today maybe tomorrow. I love being a programmer so a lack of interest or an 'I don't care' attitude is not likely to be the problem here.
Have you gone through similar experiences? How can you be a more 'careful' programmer? Any systems that you use? How do you review your own code?
Thanks a lot for your time
Context: 2 years of java/JS. 2.5 months at new job - python + django <comment><USER2>
      ... Desire to be regarded as fast. ...

I assume you work with sprints and some points have been assigned to some user story. In my opinion it's good to generally first find the quickest solution that gives the expected result and then, if time is left, improve the code quality. If there is not enough time to properly finish a feature (i.e.: write good quality code), with good quality code, add a user story in the back log that explains the refactoring to be needed.

I guess in general this is also the way to go when you see other code, unrelated to the feature you are working on, that needs some major refactoring. Because at the end of the sprint you still want your own user stories completed.

You need your PM to understand the need for the refactoring, so you can dedicate the right amount of time and it gets a high enough priority in the backlog (some PM's might only want to focus on new features).

<comment><AUTHOR> But if something is flagged in code review, it is expected to be fixed if it concerns code quality. I think as an organization we don't have a habit of adding code review chores to our backlog

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A lot of this comes with experience. 2 years is not a very long time to have been doing this. The longer you spend time in this sort of environment, the more things you'll learn and start to pick up on without necessarily needing to be told.

This goes for missing things as well as seeing refactoring etc as "work" \- I used to think that too, but I've seen that as people gain more experience, that mindset tends to shift. Over time, you'll realize that it's better to refactor now than later when it will be much more painful. And if you're anything like most devs I know, you'll eventually begin to really enjoy refactoring because of how much more elegant you can make the code. There's something so rewarding about seeing a spaghetti string of code turn into a beautiful work of art before your eyes.

Another thing I'd like to note that I think is really important here is that having others review your code is a powerful tool. Even after many years of experience, I still get lots of comments on some of my PR's and you know what? That's my favorite thing to see! It took me a few years to realize that getting comments didn't mean that I was doing a bad job, it just meant that someone had caught something and there was something I could learn! In fact, I start to get nervous when I don't see people commenting on my PR's because it means that I'm shipping code that could have probably been improved.

It's also not just "smarter" or "better" programmers who are able to leave good, thought-provoking suggestions/thoughts on a PR that help the author learn something and improve their code. I've had juniors leave comments that taught me something or reminded me of something that I've missed, and I've also reviewed my manager's code many times and explained something that he didn't know - and he's told me the same thing about having reviewed HIS manager's code years ago.

The fact that you're already trying to be careful and diligent is awesome, keep that up. Just don't feel like you're not doing a good job just because you're not catching everything - that's the whole point of the code review.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Even after many years of experience, I still get lots of comments on some of my PR's and you know what? That's my favorite thing to see! It took me a few years to realize that getting comments didn't mean that I was doing a bad job, it just meant that someone had caught something and there was something I could learn"

That seems true. Thank you for saying that</comment></comment>


Google Sheets Query Function (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.benlcollins.com/spreadsheets/google-sheets-query-sql/ <comment><USER2> That's a great tool. The other day I had a CSV of ML predicted data which I had to analyse. Created a google sheet with the CSV and wrote Query function to generate reports.

<comment><USER3> Possible to share or point to where to learn about that? Have been having a lot of fun and success with query and always looking to push it further!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use query a lot in sheets.

The behavior gets wonky when other users apply filters and sorts.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why MS hasn't implemented a similar UDF in Excel is truly beyond me. No, Power BI isn't the same thing.

<comment><USER6> [https://www.querystorm.com](https://www.querystorm.com)

<comment><USER7> That looks really great, thanks for sharing!

<comment><USER8> While it's a cool project it cannot be compared to Sheets Query as long as Excel doesn't implement array expanding formulas (out-puting an array from a single cell formula).

PowerQuery is a very powerful tool for ETL is also not comparable as it's not natively integrated into Excel and still acts as an external component. [ex- Excel FTE here)

<comment><USER9> You're going to love this: [https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Excel- Blog/Preview-of...](https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Excel-Blog/Preview- of-Dynamic-Arrays-in-Excel/ba-p/252944)

But you'll probably also love Mesh Spreadsheets: [http://chrispsn.com/mesh- preview.html](http://chrispsn.com/mesh-preview.html) [http://mesh- spreadsheet.com/](http://mesh-spreadsheet.com/)

<comment><USER5> Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck! I am in awe. Thank God. I can barely contain my enthusiasm.

I literally wrote a "SUPERLOOKUP" formula in VBA that would apply SORT and UNIQUE but making the range dynamic would require an XLL which is a beast I never had time to tame as a hobbyist... this is a dream come true. My eyes are literally watery. Wow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love Google Sheets. The API is perfect for rapid prototypes and shits</comment>


Google & Warner Bros' Chrome Experiment: A Journey Through Middle Earth - <AUTHOR> http://middle-earth.thehobbit.com/?

<comment><USER2> Holy cow, that map is beautiful.</comment>


Children told lies by parents lie more as adults - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102759.htm <comment><USER2> what does lying more as adults equate to?

Edit: found the answer in the article:

The analysis found that parenting by lying could place children at a greater risk of developing problems that the society frowns upon, such as aggression, rule-breaking and intrusive behaviours.</comment>


Sometimes It's OK To Steal My Games - <AUTHOR> http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/07/sometimes-its-ok-to-steal-my-games.html <comment><USER2> His last chapter really has the point.

Back in the days when I played new games (maybe late-80's to mid-90's), I pirated most of the games. Of course. I didn't have the money to buy them and everyone was doing it so piracy was _the_ distribution channel. I don't feel guilty about it because if couldn't have bought all those games anyway. Instead, I feel even cherished because it was piracy that let me get much enjoyment out of the various titles which in turn made my nerdful youth much richer and tolerable. The game programmers had their starving families but I was in no position whatsoever to really make any real difference there.

But the thing is that I always bought _some_ games.

Sometimes I bought one game per year, or maybe it was three per year some other year, depending on how much money I happened to get for my birthday. Further, it wasn't so much because I wanted to altruistically feed the programmer's family but that I saw value in owning an original copy of a really good game, with the box and the manuals, and I recognized the value of the programmers' work: the entertainment that came with a really good game.

If I had been the rich kid down the block I could have bought 10 or 30 games a year. But I wasn't and I was conscientiously happy to pay for what I could and pirate the rest.

This brings me to the software market as I want to see it.

The market is a pool of games and software, unfortunately priced so that only some people can buy them. And some people who might buy some, can't legally copy and try it out before deciding to buy or not. Therefore, I see value in considering games and software, in the end, more like common goods to which everyone has _some_ rights. Not perhaps as important rights as to roads and water, but as something that costs zero to copy software begs for common copyrights.

And if it is so, the only way to pay for such thing is the pay-what-you-can model. You can't force people to buy your stuff anyway. I believe that the market, together with piracy, already exhibits this property quite strongly.

<comment><USER3> I couldn't have put it better. You described my childhood. Although I have paid the pirates to get the tapes and later disks I don't feel guilty as they did some collateral good too by driving me towards IT. You have to get to know the environment before judging someone. Back in the early 90s there was absolutely NO software market and you got no access to any information whatsoever as from a 100$/month/household there is not much money to be made for a publisher. Now I buy games even if I don't play some but the developer strikes a chord in me and I just end up liking his/her attitude and the support I can I will give him. I buy the special games and that extends to music as well. Thanks to piracy I learned English and opened my eyes and mind and now I am happy to give back and I'm pretty sure if it wouldn't be for my savings spent on pirates I couldn't write this and couldn't have gone to see my favourite bands playing live and I feel I can give back. Just note that paying for a single pirated Z80 game I paid high prices...but it was worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unless gamers are even more obnoxious than my mental image of us, isn't this fairly easily solvable by writing back "I'm sorry you can't afford the game, $NAME. Tell you what, I keep a few copies around for reviews by magazines and the like, and would be happy to give you one. Your CD key is... Thanks for your continued support of indie game companies." You can then go on to mention non-monetary ways to compensate you, like mentioning your generosity on the front page of Reddit, which apparently works quite well.

The "I don't want to ask for a handout" factor alone will probably keep people in line. If you're worried, you can give their requests individualized attention and weigh the pros and cons of their sob story, but that is almost certainly not an effective use of your time.

<comment><USER5> How many emails do you think he'll get after the kid _does_ write a love- letter to digg about how awesome Jeff Vogel is? How many from other Indian and Chinese kids, and how many from scammers and dirtbags?

The unfortunate effect of rewarding a request for a freebie online is that it attracts dirtbags who will drown out the voices of the people you actually want to help.

If you think the stigma against begging will keep people in line, let me congratulate you on your good fortune to date. You clearly have never seen a good thing ruined by dirtbags or met such a dirtbag and heard them crow about how they lied/scammed/cheated their way into a share of someone else's generosity with nary a thought to those crowded out.

<comment><USER6> You might want to know about these things before disagreeing so vehemently:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1492920>

<comment><USER5> I guess that kind of marketing approach is something Jeff should consider as an indy dev, but a possible benefit to him from exposure doesn't seem to have much to do with whether handing out free CD Keys to every email with a SOB story is practical or effective at actually helping the people he would like to help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > If you like PC games but you usually pirate them, I want you to start > actually paying for one game a year. Just one. Please

Isn't that practically equivalent to saying "donate $50 to your favorite game company each year"? It's money they weren't planning to give out, and they'll receive the same product either way—so it's a donation.

<comment><USER8> No more so than it would be a donation to a car dealership if a car thief bought a car.

<comment><USER9> Not really. Copying games doesn't destroy anything.

<comment><USER10> Time.

It destroys the time it took the developer to make the game.

<comment><USER11> No it doesn't - developer took the time to make a game and no matter what people will do this time was spent ("destroyed"). We could argue that copying games destroys industry, but that's just word play (likewise computers destroyed the industry of abacus makers and it was not theft). Anyway - pirating is wrong, because you do sth with other peoples work, that they don't want you to, why should we make it more evil by comparing it to thef I can't understand.

<comment><USER12> >> more evil

Why/how is theft more evil than piracy?

<comment><USER13> ajuc's argument isn't that theft is more evil than piracy, it's that it is dishonest to call piracy theft.

I would say that piracy is, in general, less evil than theft. Imagine that you are a master forger, and can make a perfect copy of a work of art. Clearly it is both a worse, and a different sort of harm for you to steal a painting than it would be to make a copy of that painting.

This is why the law distinguishes infringement from stealing, and I would argue that conflating the two is poisoning the well. Just because it is impractical in most cases to steal digital works doesn't mean that infringement upon them is stealing.

<comment><USER12> I agree that it's dishonest to call piracy theft in the truest sense of the word, but I feel like the primary reason that most people rail against the terms being conflated is because theft is a more familiar criminal concept to most people and thus has a stronger connotation, and pirates would prefer it if piracy wasn't actually a crime.

I strongly disagree that it is worse to steal something than it is to make a copy of it (EDIT: when doing so is a violation of someone else's right to sell it), especially when the "something" in question is digital data. Unlike a painting, a copy of digital data is functionally equivalent to the master - neither of them can be called a forgery, nor does one have more or less value than the other. Additionally, the ability to produce copies of data is not a talent or a skill. It is available to everyone.

This brings us to the center of the "information is free" argument: digital data is essentially worthless, because it can be copied infinitely for essentially no cost. The only way to associate value with it is to make it artifically scarce, i.e. control copying.

Information may want to be free, but the people who produce it want to be paid. The people who take the time and expend the effort to arrange or gather data often do so with the intention of selling copies for money, or with the intention of keeping one or a very limited number of copies for themselves (such as the source code for your new startup. If piracy's OK, I hope you don't mind me grabbing a copy and starting my own business.)

TL;DR: Piracy is theft of the author's ability to sell and protect their work. Some may argue that works that can be replicated for free should not be able to be sold, but I disagree. I like commercial software in addition to free software, and I like being paid to be a software developer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "And pirating PC games is wrong because, were it not for that minority of worthy souls who actually chip in, the industry that makes the games we love would descend into a shadow realm of tiny ad-supported Flash games and Farmville."

How does he deny the entire community of free A quality games? Dwarf Fortress, Cave Story, N, Crawl...? I've got your flash game and your Farmville here, but I know it's not what he was thinking.

There are plenty of other games in quite a few categories that are and always have been free. There are worlds of innovation in every Ludum Dare, and for more particular gamers, there are several amazing games coming out every year from the different shmup and roguelike competitions. VVVVVV notwithstanding, the masocore genre has been almost completely contained in the domain of free indie games.

Note, also, the development of piracy resistant game platforms: League of Legends, for example, provides their Dota-like and dedicated servers free of charge, and get money from users from a store that sells cosmetic skins for in-game characters. There are ways to extract value from players who don't pay, won't pay, and are going to play. Most pirate copies of games give incentives to recommend all your friends pirate, not buy, the game.

Do you think anyone who was making games for love and not money would release Big Rig Racing?

<comment><USER6> I hate doing this, but I have to ask- what did I do to get downvoted? This post is a factual correction of his false dichotomy, and even if I show some of my ideology (i.e., that free indie games have actually done a lot more for ludology than AAA studios), is that really such an offensive notion that it deserves an unexplained downvote? Do people deserve to get paid for their work even if they don't want to get paid, and to the detriment of potential players that don't pay in the land of mandatory recompense?

I'm just trying to figure out where I fell afoul, because I'm drawing blanks.

Most people on HN seem happy to let newspapers die because old business models don't deserve to be propped up and live forever. However, some newspapers actually provide some otherwise difficult to obtain services like entrenched journalism. The absence of AAA studios in this hypothetical piracy death situation is not going to lead to any similar dearth of original games.

Or did you really like Big Rig Racing?

Sigh.

<comment><USER14> Dude, you play games?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Computers Exist In the Third World

Every so often, I get an e-mail in broken English from some kid in Russia or southeast Asia or India_

Is Russia really classed as third-world?

<comment><USER11> Apparently in USA it is, like the rest of Central and Eastern Europe:) Anyway - in my country 10 years ago everybody was buying computers for their kids, it was sth like 1000$ then, and it was 2-3 months of earnings for average family. Software was pirated, almost by everybody. It was priced for companies, not for normal people, because everybody assumed it will be only bought by companies who need it, private people would pirate it, and they did. Earnings are up today, but kids are used to pirating things. Still, when game is sold with reasonable price (I would say 5-10$) it isn't pirated by normal people, only jerks who won't buy anything no matter what. I would say in my region people crossed the line between "piracy is neccesity" to "piracy is easy" in the last 10 years. Of course mind set of computerized generation (30 years and younger) is here to stay, so it will take long time before piracy will stop.

<comment><USER15> Heh, I moved to Poland last year and was surprised at how it's not only the computer experts who pass around pirated stuff - basically if you have a computer, you'll have pirated stuff on it. You've given me a good explanation for why it's so widespread :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This kind of humble post is the best protection against piracy, jerks never pay for games anyway. Post like this remind you that if you want to continue to play you have to give a little of your money. Of course, it's easier to do when you are a small player that when you are EA but I would like EA to remind people as nicely as this is why you pay games : so that there will be another one sometimes... instead of putting insane DRM that get cracked anyway and annoy real customers.

</comment><comment><USER17> The argument made at the start (I did not make it beyond this) is terrible.

I like complex games. Complex games currently require copyright to be funded. Therefore copyright is a necessity and breaking it is a crime akin to spoiling the environment.

I'm not saying I disagree that copyright is a way society can provide an incentive for complex information based goods.

But this issue is vastly more complex than he's making out.

How long does copyright need to exit for to provide the best balance between incentive to the producers and the public good of old out of copyright media.

Does society really benefit from things like starcraft II or would we all be just as happy with less complex information based products.

What would we get for entertainment if we didn't have copyright? Given the complexity of some free Mods out there I'm going to go ahead and guess it's abit different to the shadowy wasteland of flash games he suggests.

<comment><USER5> The article is about the morality of pirating. As the overwhelming majority of piracy occurs within months of release, length of copyright --or even the existence of copyright-- is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion.

Perhaps you should restrict yourself to commenting on articles you did read? How useful would it be if my reply to your post was firstly, and admission to not having bothered to read it, but then few lines pointing out how complex patent law and the economic effects are, and how neither the article, nor your comment, bother addressing the larger issue?</comment></comment>


How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle - <AUTHOR> http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jul-aug/22-how-to-avoid-repeating-debacle-of-space-shuttle

<comment><USER2> This article makes a lot of good points, but I felt it failed to really break the surface and address the core problem that led to the failure of the Space Shuttle program.

That core problem is misalignment of incentives. Or in short, politics. When you've got a public budget and your goals are political ones, you're going to pursue a specific set of capabilities and policies that help your political career. This is true from the President all the way down to the lowest level of managers at NASA. I think the real cost, and thus tragedy, of this era is the thousands upon thousands of good engineers who were sucked up into NASA because they believed in the dream of human space flight, and were never able to accomplish much over the courses of their careers.

The solution to this problem is very simple: No government agency with control over space. Outsource everything. If government wants to fund scientific research or exploration, great- give grants to institutions that then have effectively complete autonomy. For instance, JPL, could be a separate institute with little connection to government other than primarily getting its funding from the government. If politicians want to send a probe to Mars, let JPL be the master contractor, where JPL hires the scientists, while subcontracting out the design, development and production to private entities.

SpaceX is much more efficient getting to space, cost wise and reliability wise (I believe) than NASA ever has been, and they are using (IIRC) a discarded russian design, off the shelf as the basis for their system (though certainly they've done a lot of engineering work.)

The commercial space industry in the USA has suffered under the government control over all things space since the beginning. I remember when Richard Branson-- the founder of Virgin Galactic, and the one who funded the design and development of SpaceShipTwo was prevented from seeing the design he'd paid for because he was a british national!

In fact, I'm certain that the only reason Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic were successful is that their "launch" requires only a runway, and thus they can easily do it from just about any country. Previously, NASA and the FAA has made it very difficult for private entities to pursue space access, by denying them the necessary permits to do testing.

After the X prize was won, when commercial operation plans were announced, there was a flurry of congressional noise about regulating the space industry ("for safety" of course.) I think the only reason that died down is that there is literally nothing stopping Virgin Galactic from flying off and launching from a newly crated "space port" in, say, Panama. (Well, except that the government apparently considers their designs "National Security Secrets".)

It is time to dismantle NASA. Let the capitalists pursue profit in space, and government can get whatever it needs launched (or built) by the same contractors under whatever terms the government wants-- but at much lower costs.

<comment><USER3> The problem wasn't NASA. The problem was, NASA was told to build something impossible - a cheap and reliable spaceplane. It was many times more complex than anything else ever made (including the Saturn V). It was never going to be cheap and reliable. (Well, it might be possible today, with decades more experience and technology). Only the "yes men" said it was possible, and they got promoted. The rest of the engineers were forced to work in a bubble where a realistic big picture didn't matter.

OK, you can privatize that. But the same problems will apply. Look at Australia's military acquisitions. Every vehicle we buy costs 10X the MOTS price, because there's always a requirement "modifications for Australian conditions". The private operators read this as "complete idiots in command", and charge accordingly. A privatized space sector would work the same way - stupid government orders will get stupid prices.

<comment><USER4> They could have built a cheap and reusable space plane. The problem was they built it do far more than was necessary. You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. (by cheap somewhere under 10 million a flight.) You can't build a cheap space plane that hauls up 7 people and 50,000LB of junk into space at back at the same time. If they just focused on people they could have avoided an external fuel tank and all those fragile tiles. Focus on a reasonable amount of structural redundancy and ended up with something that could get back from space without needing a new paint job let alone a full engine rebuild.

PS: Feathers don't burn up on rentry but bricks do. The shuttle was far to close to a brick to get back without a lot of trauma.

<comment><USER5> >>You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb.

That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight!

What is the NASA track record for big projects that push costs _down_?

(Didn't Burt Rutan have some story of when he built some high altitude air plane on an order -- and the NASA space suit integration team was larger than the team to design and build the aircraft?)

<comment><USER6> > That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated > space flight!

I don't think so. Those 7 people need all the "junk" up there too. it's their living quarters, their food, their science experiments, etc.

Maybe you launch it separately. But don't forget about the cost of that.

<comment><USER5> You missed my point -- 100-1000$/lb is at least a factor of ten less than anything else.

(NASA is not noted for going factors of ten _less_ than normal costs.)

<comment><USER7> I expect they would still blow a lot on R&D. However, rocket fuel for a small craft is not that expencive so it's really a question of how much inspection / repare the vehicle needs. A light craft could reinter the atmosphere with minimal heating, and you can build reasonably efficent but vary simple rocket engines so there is plenty of room to simplyfy matence. So, in theory we chould build a fairly cheap and reusable shutte to LEO. The real question is could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship?

PS: The space shuttle's never left the R&D stage. Practicly every flight change some significant internal system. If they had simply said "these are good enough" then the program would have been far cheaper.

<comment><USER5> >>could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship?

Sigh. To repeat a trivial point for the _third_ time...

You have the opinion that NASA after 1970 could do any large project and push costs _down_ by a factor of ten.

If a serious argument could be made, then one of the NASA fan boys would have posted it...

<comment><USER7> It's a question of incentives. The costs of sending 100 people up instead of the normal crew of 7 and a lot of cargo on a shuttle mission would have been minimal. However, there was no real point to sending that many people into space at the same time and the risk from failure would have been insane.

So if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a fairly low cost per launch system. However, once they started operating highly capable but delicate system added to the fact there was little value in sending more than a token number of people into space in a given year then costs are going to spiral out of control even if the desgin was reasonable.

PS: I have even heard the argument that NASA benefited from the amount of spectacle involved in the shuttle program. If they had built something that looked and operated like a 747 nobody would have cared but build something that takes thousands of controlled explosions and then sit's on a huge ball of fire into space and wow you must be doing something important.

<comment><USER5> >>if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a fairly low cost per launch system.

For the second time to you (4th time overall) -- uh... no. That account is less than two weeks old. I am probably being trolled.

<comment><USER7> That's a strong dismissal with little evidence to back it up. I am not saying that I expect NASA to become a lean organization tomorrow, just that there incentives are all messed up.

Anyway, you might think that government organizations are always full of bloat but compare the SSA with your 401k and you will find they are vary low overhead. The problem with government organizations is they tend to make really big a stupid decisions for political reasons, aka if SSA had invested in a mix of stocks and bonds vs. US treasury bonds people would be talking about how over funded it was right now. Instead the SSA "surplus" was used to subsidize government borrowing and treated as yet another agency.

PS: I have 64 Karma on a 2 week old act that may suggest something about my activities. If you actually have something meaningful to say feel free to support your argument, but right now I am feeling trolled.

<comment><USER5> 11 days, to be specific. All the trolls get some karma, I think you are marked as new accounts below 50 now? If you aren't a troll, don't repeat claims without answering people's points from a new account.

A link re the Shuttle: [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2011/07/lunch-wi...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2011/07/lunch-with-the-astronaut.html)

Bye.

<comment><USER7> "Tethers in space, break" for a long number of reasons. NASA has actually tried to use tethers in space several times and found a lot of surprisingly tough issues. One of the least obvious induced current, but read up on it as there is some really interesting engendering involved. So, from the perspective of someone who you want to ride in a tin can at the end of one of these you are really going to need to say, if these break the occupants survive due the ability for each half to reinter the atmosphere, be rescued or whatever.

Now run the numbers for a version of that a reasonable person would actually be willing to live in for a full year and perhaps he would be willing to discuss it. However, a moon base is probably both cheaper and safer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maciej Cegłowski's essay "A Rocket to Nowhere" is a much better description of how and why the Shuttle was doomed by political and military considerations.

<http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm>

<comment><AUTHOR> Great essay, thanks. "And we must remember that space is called space for a reason - there is nothing in it, at least not where the Shuttle goes, save for a few fast-moving pieces of junk from the last few times we went up there, forty years ago. The interesting bits in space are all much further away, and we have not paid them a visit since 1972."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What amazes me is how uncritically the media usually treats this issue.

A great many things the government does follow a similar over-promising, under-delivering pattern. The notion that perception is reality and a loss of confidence is the worst thing that can ever happen conspire to stifle public questioning.

We see it with Afghanistan, stimulus spending, TARP. As justifications don't pan out, something else is used to justify things.

Of course, the real root cause is that those paying for things are far removed from the decision making process. If voters individually decided whether they were going to be taxed $500 a year for continuing the shuttle or $100 a year for returning to disposable rockets, this program would have been killed long ago.

But everything is put in one big pot and dollars borrowed to conceal the actual ultimate pain. There are so many deceptive aspects to how this operates, its difficult to describe or even grasp.

<comment><USER10> I would think that the people are hacker news of all places would not get caught up in media-hype trends about how all government spending is waste bla bla. NASA tried to change the paradigm of space travel. It didn't work the way they'd hoped, but that's the risk of trying something different. Comparing it to TARP and Afghanistan is a ridiculous non sequitur that only works if you buy into the anti-government yammering in the first place.

<comment><USER2> So, am I to understand that your position is that NASA is efficient in its spending, and that this who think governments are inefficient (cost wise) at achieving goals are caught up in a "media-hype" that is "antigovernment"?

If that is correct, how were SpaceX and Scaled Composites able to do so much with such limited resources?

<comment><USER11> Indeed, how were SpaceX and Scaled Composites able to do so much with such limited resources, 30 years later and having benefited immensely from NASA's pioneering work?

NASA could definitely be run better but let's compare apples to apples. I'm sure any given engineer at SpaceX has a computer on his desk superior to the entire world's computational capacity at the time the shuttle was designed.

<comment><USER12> I think its disingenuous to say that.

People are not comparing SpaceX of today to NASA of 30 years ago.

They're comparing contemporary NASA to contemporary SpaceX and finding NASA is lacking.

<comment><USER9> NASA could also be compared to the Russian program and found lacking. And the Russians still have an ability to put things into space, while the US now doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article is mis-titled.

It makes an easy argument for "debacle," but omits the difficult "how to avoid" part.

<comment><USER14> I was a little disappointed, as well. It looks like it was perhaps titled by an editor or, conversely, edited down to its introduction so that the title no longer matched.

That said, I do hope, now that the program is gone and the cheer-leading apparatus can (hopefully) no longer feed on it, that the program can come to be analyzed with reference to its poor safety, limited capability, high cost, and needless complexity, rather than with reference to nostalgia and whatever other reality-distortion field that was present that allowed it to receive so little critical attention in the popular mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the F-35 is a better example. The selling point was re-usable components for three different jets. The only thing soaring are project costs.

<comment><USER16> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F-35 is built by Lockheed-Martin, not by the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For the most part, the author is correct: by most objective measures, the shuttle was a disaster. One point I disagree with is his criticism of "the teachers who spoke about it in admiring tones to their students".

Is it really that wrong to try and get kids excited about engineering and science?

<comment><USER18> No, so long as it's science with solid economics and business sense behind it. [/tongue in cheek]

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Amen!

Though how we could ever expect federal government programs be efficient and cost-effective is beyond me, when the work is being done by the governmental agency itself.

We're much better at using governmental funds (which I still think are taken largely by theft) via agencies like DARPA, which operate through private industry and the educational establishments.

<comment><USER20> NASA does work with private industry and educational establishments. In fact Lockheed Martin manufactured many components on the Space Shuttle and will be building its replacement as well. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5748366>

I don't share your faith that this is a recipe for efficiency, as both Boeing and Lockheed regularly lobby congress for wasteful spending (however, usually for defense, not NASA).

<comment><USER2> I think the gap between your perspectives comes from the existence of lobbying and the bid process not being open. Further, there is less competition because the previous control over the entire industry that NASA enjoyed prevented many possible competitors to LM or Boeing from getting off the ground.

Of course there is a wide array of subcontractors involved in NASA projects. I don't think anyone who accuses NASA of being inefficient thinks that NASA workers do all the manufacturing, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is also a good perspective, albeit old:

[http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_n...](http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml)

"This country was bounded to the West by a desert. One day a telescope built on one of the country's mountains revealed what looked like sea far away beyond the desert which would have to be crossed in order to discover if there was habitable land on the coast. So the politicians got together and established a government agency to send some people through the desert. They called it the National Agricultural Frontier Administration, NAFA for short, and charged it with a dramatic task to demonstrate the vigour of the nation: it would carry out a 'mission' to send people right through the desert to the West coast of the continent and bring them back safely, within a decade."

<comment><USER22> The funny thing is that it's accuracy hasn't changed - which tells you all you need to know about Nasa

<comment><USER23> I hadn't read this article before, and I couldn't find the publication date in the page.

The first time it appears in the Wayback Machine is in December 2002. [http://web.archive.org/web/20021217044832/http://www.spacefu...](http://web.archive.org/web/20021217044832/http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml)

<comment><USER22> It circulated inside Nasa (and STSci) for a long time before it surfaced on the internet</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Inside Corporate America's Plan to Ditch Workers' Comp - <AUTHOR> https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-corporate-americas-plan-to-ditch-workers-comp <comment><USER2> Odd, in that worker's comp sets a ceiling on damages, which many companies prefer. In major workplace injury cases you often see the company arguing that it's a worker's comp injury and the employee arguing that it's not.

The limits on damages under worker's comp are notoriously low -- for example, in most states a loss of a finger is a fixed payment of 16 weeks wages. Most juries would award much higher.

Plaintiffs lawyers (who normally take 33% of settlements) hate worker's comp because there's no lawsuit -- it's just a paperwork filing with no evidence required other than that the injury happened at work. It doesn't matter who is at fault, how the equipment was designed, etc.

This feels like there's another agenda at play that's not well explained in TFA. It sounds like a bit of a bootleggers and baptists coalition if plaintiffs' attorneys and companies are both in favor of something.

</comment><comment><USER3> This leaves me feeling ill.

It strikes me as especially cynical that a push like this would come from the same bent that objects so strongly to state-sponsored healthcare, but is perfectly happy to pass the coverage buck to whoever's down the line--be it insurance or ultimately Medicare/Medicaid.

</comment><comment><USER4> Binding arbitration: An end-run around the 7th amendment to the us constitution by the corporates.

</comment><comment><USER5> As if they even need this. Having worked at a small construction company for a year, I've seen multiple worker's comp claims denied even when the injury is our fault. Worker's comp in general is flawed, but this scheme shows that the United States really don't care what happens to our nation's laborers as long as the lobbyists are happy.

<comment><USER6> No, it shows that federalism is not yet dead. That the principle of 50 Petri dishes still holds, that Texas and now Oklahoma can try out this experience, which, as you yourself note, isn't ideal in the old government run model, and wasn't exactly great in the one time I used it myself.

Am I concerned about this? Yep (we'll ignore that I'm retired by non-workplace disability and living in Missouri, albeit very, very close to Oklahoma). But I also believe it might become a better system, with, of course, suitable government oversight.

ADDED: slapshot pointed out something else in [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10394007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10394007), this adds another set of players, the plaintiff's bar (which is traditionally healthy in Texas) and of course the judicial system they're a part of. No sovereign immunity for the bureaucrats to hide behind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What happens when an Uber or AirBnB "worker" gets injured? That's the corporate dream, and workers are doing it to themselves!</comment>


The ratio of warm and cold temperature records is increasingly skewed - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/climate-change-warm-cold-temperature-records-ratio-02f86e11-5d83-47d4-944b-5856745c1d2b.html <comment><USER2> Would absolutely agree from a personal experience viewpoint. Live in Eastern Spain, two days ago the max temp was 25°C, today it was 12°C.

Gotta love climate change.</comment>


Stripe's 210 Day Hold Practices - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiehackers.com/post/stripes-210-day-hold-practices-yes-you-read-that-right-a77dba9917 <comment><USER2> This article is crap. Won't tell us even what industry their startup is in... If I had to guess, it's for good reason: it's probably on Stripe's list of prohibited businesses. (And this isn't really a list Stripe created.. it's all from Visa and MasterCards card rules that Stripe is required to follow.)

Then they continue with: _it also hides behind federal regulations like KYC (know your customer) and the Patriot Act as a justification for requesting more documents_

Yes... those laws apply to Stripe. That's why Congress created those laws. No, stripe won't commit a felony for you or help you evade those laws.

Then he ends it with saying he works at a bank... and everyone should use a merchant account instead (everyone should use the product his employer sells.. no issues there).

Hey guess what: all of those laws you mentioned and prohibited businesses... those apply to EVERY merchant account whether it's at a bank or Stripe.

I'm guessing this is his first merchant account, and he didn't read the contract (if the startup exists at all). For those of you in a similar situation, here's my advice (and not just for Stripe): read the contract and abide by the rules. If you can't, don't have your customers deposit thousands of dollars into it, and then violate your contract.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did state "a small startup in the infoservices space" within the first couple of sentences, but I apologize if that was insufficient. If you'd really like granular details, it was a vehicle history report website. Completely mundane and most certainly not on the prohibited businesses list.

And I wasn't complaining about the documentation requirements. I was complaining about the fact that they weren't reviewing the documents, and used them as an additional barrier to block payouts.

As for the bank point -- I work for a consulting firm, and the client I'm on is a large US bank. I do not work anywhere near their merchant services division. I don't receive any sort of commission when someone signs up for their services, and I didn't mention them specifically here. Really don't know what else there is to say on that point.

<comment><USER3> It's also worth remembering that running to social media and blaming 'big bad Stripe/PayPal/Monzo' for holding funds is part of the MO of fraudsters so it's right that posts like these are treated with at least a reasonable degree of suspicion.

Having worked with companies in the fraud monitoring space I'd say that it's likely that your case (new Stripe account starts taking loads of money for digital infoproduct) has fallen foul of an AML flag. The timeline for that is largely out of Stripe's hands, but there are certain (legal) limitations on what you can be told about your case.

Rest assured though, it's more trouble than it's worth for Stripe to arbitrarily hold your money for no reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> On the one hand...

"a small startup in the infoservices space" is very vague. I wouldn't be surprised if Stripe had some reason to be concerned. I'm not sure if it was explicitly mentioned in the post; how many chargebacks did you get, and how many refunds did you have to issue?

To me, without more background, the post strikes me as being overly sensational.

On the other hand...

It concerns me, assuming the references to Stripes T&Cs are accurate, that it is stacked so heavily in Stripe's favor. At the very least, Stripe should be paying reasonable interest (say, the Prime rate) on the funds that it is holding.

It is getting tiring to see stories of incidents like this. Of T&Cs with draconian provisions, little transparency, and no followup. But I don't mean that to say the stories should be removed from HN.

<comment><USER3> > At the very least, Stripe should be paying reasonable interest (say, the > Prime rate) on the funds that it is holding.

If Stripe suspects AML, it certainly shouldn't be paying interest on the funds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hiya. I work at Stripe. Mind emailing email@example.com and humming a few bars so we can look into this for you?

<comment><USER6> That you would have to communicate this to a customer via HN is pretty damning.

<comment><USER7> Au contraire, I sincerely appreciate the personal touch. Probably nothing to do with them, but he's offered a conduit for them to send additional details, and committed to looking into it. That's more than OP seems to have got through official channels.

Every company of some size has "WTF" edge cases, IMO it matters how we handle them, even if sometimes handling it takes an unusual or unofficial form.

<comment><USER6> The fact that the OP had to resort to unofficial channels to get satisfaction is the problem, full stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Come on, this is the worst kind of drama boosting. An account named "stripesucks" posts a link to an article written today, discussing the author's individual billing dispute with Skype and urging everyone to use a specific named competitor, and it's on the front page?

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't use a specifically named competitor. I simply stated "direct merchant account." Authorize.net is not a Stripe competitor, it's a gateway, not a processor.

<comment><USER2> Stripe is just a bundled merchant account + gateway. It isn't like you can break up the bundle, so Authorize.net is losing a potential customer each time a business goes to Stripe. So I would say they are a competitor who works with partners (merchant account providers) to provide the same service as Stripe.

<comment><USER9> I used Authorize.net circa 2010 at a large cell phone manufacturer for processing micropayments. They changed their API without notification and it broke payments for a few days, and it was really crappy considering they were supposed to be a "big dog" in the industry. Any changes were supposed to happen first in their staging environment and our test-suite ran against it to make sure it still worked before it was signed-off to be deployed into production.

Also, when I was in the UK, getting a payment processor (we had our own merchant accounts) pre-Stripe was a royal PITA. They wanted all sorts of documentation and proof that we were a "real business" before letting us process payments.

TBH, it seems like Stripe and PayPal are being pushed by "risk management" corporate suits into being unreasonable and treating their customers like United Airlines' passengers. A few years back I would ordinarily point people over to FeeFighters' Samurai to shop the best deals on payment gateways, but GroupOn decided to buy them and make them commit seppuku.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This sounds like an AML or OFAC issue. I'd guess this has nothing to do with Stripe. AML laws in the US prohibit the financial institution from giving the customer basically _any_ information about the reason for the hold.

This leads to (understandably) frustrated customers.

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems like the primary issue is the lack of a single human account manager maintaining consistent communication while your cash is held in reserve.

Perhaps the law should change to require interest paid for funds held in reserve accounts. This could prevent conflict-of-interest between fraud prevention and holding money to collect interest. Perhaps Stripe should offer interest and push for this law change since it will further contrast them with PayPal as the good guys.

I had a similar experience with PayPal reserves and enjoyed poor communication and arbitrary reserve extensions after a six figure spike in sales. I complained to the state banking authority when they deducted refunds out of my bank account instead of from their held reserves — PayPal was clearly in the wrong and they corrected it after numerous phone calls, while still holding our funds in reserve. The CA banking regulators proved incompetent.

</comment><comment><USER12> I used to work in payments. There's a lot of info that the poster is willfully not posting, so I believe it's probably something to do with her business, or something she did to trigger the fraud alert. For example, why did Stripe hold the funds instead of refunding the money back to the customers and cancelling all the transactions? There's a story to be told here and she conspicuously ignores this. There is a LOT more to this story than what the poster is reporting on so until more details are given, I think it's probably something the poster did that triggered fraud alerts.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why is it so hard for these tech firms swimming in cash to hire and keep a live, human customer services team?

<comment><USER14> Customer services don't scale (only linearly). There's a reason why these companies are swimming in cash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Indie hackers is owned by Stripe so it's interesting OP decided to write their post there.

</comment><comment><USER16> They are pretty much holding the funds till it's no longer subject to card dispute/chargeback.

<comment><AUTHOR> As explained in the post, it's been 180 days, which is out of the window in which customers can even file disputes.</comment></comment>


Why Mickey Mouse's 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-push/ <comment><USER2> They aren't going to push until the very last moment. You can be sure they are greasing the skids though. That mouse will NOT become public property.

<comment><USER3> You're talking about a monumental lobbying effort against a vigilant public. That's not the sort of thing that can happen overnight, and the article dealt with the possibility of last-minute trickery.

The article makes some really good points. The political landscape really has changed since 1998. The content industry may still have more resources overall, but it's definitely going to get ugly if they try again. Hollywood does _not_ want the public turning against them, that'll just make it worse.

Honestly I wish there were a way to compromise. Let companies pay for perpetual copyright. They want to hold onto Steamboat Willie forever, let them. Just don't drag everybody else with you. We just need to make it an economic decision for them, so that the public's interests are served eventually.

We want a thriving ecosystem in which apex predators like Disney _and_ the caribou can thrive.

<comment><USER4> Is the public really that vigilant here? It might actually be news to most that Disney is primarily responsible for long copyrights in the first place.

<comment><USER3> The public, through their lobbying arm, the EFF among others. Americans like to outsource their vigilance.

<comment><USER5> I feel the role of the world's Googles is far more significant than the EFF.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Copyright should be abolished.

As it stands, copyright serves little positive social purpose. The overwhelming majority of creators get paid little if anything for their work, and still there is a glut of content. So there should be no fear of the world losing lots of great content if there was no copyright.

Most of the benefit of copyright is reaped by the middle men, who profit off the work when the creatives that made it have long ceased to do so (if they ever did). Abolishing copyright will thus mostly affect these middle men, and have little effect on content creation itself.

Those creatives that still want to get paid in a copyright-free era can find business models that don't rely on copyright, like performances, donations, or kickstarter-like models where one is paid for future work.

<comment> nv-vn There's no incentive to make a movie if it will never make any money. Without copyright, anyone can purchase it once and give it away for free or sell each copy for $0.01 and undercut all competition. Digital content takes X amount of work and then allows it to be duplicated by creating infinite copies. If someone can infinitely copy your work, you will never get paid for that X amount (or make any profit). While I don't strongly support current IP law, getting rid of it isn't the solution. It's like having an economy based on fake money, after a very short period of time the money becomes worthless (except here the money = work).

<comment><USER7> > There's no incentive to make a movie if it will never make any money.

> Without copyright, anyone can purchase it once and give it away for free or > sell each copy for $0.01 and undercut all competition.

That's not a problem if the creators were paid to make the movie.

The parent mentioned several mechanisms to do this. It's not hard: after all, that's how basically all industries have worked since forever.

Anecdotally: half of the jobs I've had were producing private, in-house software; I got a regular wage for doing this, since the companies found such software useful. No need for copyright. The other half were paying me to produce FOSS which, once it was written, we _wanted_ people to copy and spread for free, since that would gain us more attention (and potential customers for our related services). Again, no need for copyright (although some were strong copyleft, with network-use clauses)

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's wise to compare software development with other creative production. Software can provide a quantitative value through _functionality_ to its users. Copyleft software often makes sense because it becomes possible to create a community of users that also support the project, making it cheaper and functionally superior for everyone.

Media is a much different story, and transforming creators into beggars (as suggested) is not a solution. At that point, creators are competing with their ability to beg, and not their ability to create. Any person with a reasonable amount of self-respect and pride in their work would not tolerate that kind of existence.

<comment><USER7> Why is it "begging" if, say, a screenwriter does it; but it's "customer aquisition" (or equivalent) for everyone else on the planet?

<comment><USER8> Because "customer acquisition" means that a business offers something of value, reaches out to entities that might be interested in obtaining that value, and enters into an agreement to supply that value for another value.

That process is totally different from asking for donations (which is literally begging -- no value is being offered, but value is expected to be received.) Kickstarter can certainly produce valuable media, but it eliminates the possibility of a small group of people taking a risk on content. That will undoubtedly have major effects on the kind of content that is produced, the question is _what_ will that impact be?

<comment><USER7> > That process is totally different from asking for donations

Whilst donations might work for some, I was mostly talking about doing work (to provide value, e.g. writing, sculpting, etc.) for an amount agreed-upon in advance (either paid to an escrow service, or invoiced afterwards). Movie companies could take on the role of escrow service, rather than their current role as investment vehicle.

> (which is literally begging -- no value is being offered, but value is > expected to be received.)

If 'no value is being offered' by movies, games, etc. then why do people _already_ pay money for things like DVDs? Copyright can't be the reason, since that doesn't compel anyone to buy stuff they see no value in (copyright just restricts who can do the selling).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think it should be extended again. How else can dead authors and musicians be incentivized into creating new works?

<comment><USER10> To be fair, the life expectancy of people keeps increasing.

<comment><USER11> I don't think anyone will ever live for another 70 years after their death.

<comment><USER12> No, but children and grandchildren might live on after their dead. Copyright after death is mainly for heritage-reasons, to close the gap to families who inherit valuable physical objects or land owning-rights.

<comment><USER13> So your parents made _stuff_ which due to a legal monopoly they were able to earn money and property from.

Not only are you to inherit the money and property they earned. You are also to inherit the right to further make new money from this legal monopoly on something you have done nothing for at all.

Sounds reasonable to me.

<comment><USER14> So if I create a work and die the day it's published, my heirs should get nothing. How reasonable does that sound?

<comment><USER15> On the other hand, if I kill someone right before I die myself (from "natural causes"), will my heirs be criminals ?

Sounds reasonnable ?

<comment><USER16> Right but if you kill someone and stay living your heirs are not criminals either.

If you create the next billion dollar game and survive your heirs (or those you specify in your will) will surely be enriched, perhaps it should be 70 years alive or dead that copyright persists for.

<comment><USER15> > perhaps it should be 70 years alive or dead

I agree

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Even if it won't be extended, the damage has already been done. Imho this whole complex around "copyright" and "intellectual property" is probably the biggest "capital bubble" in human history.

Tangible goods are finite on this planet, intangible goods (like IP) are not, so they are the perfect tool for keeping this "perpetual growth machine" aka world economy going, even if actual resources become scarce, we will never run out of ideas to "monetize".

In that regard, I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the developed economies have moved from manufacturing industries, dealing with actual goods and finite resources, to "service industries", where most of the value is generated through "ideas" which are infinite.

It's easy to put a value on something tangible, you can calculate the resources that go in there, the man-hours needed to manufacture it, the costs of the manufacturing facilities. The same does not apply to most intellectual property, its whole value is pretty much an arbitrary estimation with no limiting factors in terms of real-world resources, as such there are no rational limits to how much one could charge for them.

</comment><comment><USER18> Pragmatic Solution:

Make 4 year extensions for copyright to cost $1,000,000 per item. Increase the fee to account for inflation.

Micky Mouse and Sherlock Holmes (2nd Half) will stay locked up but the 99.9% of the other works are freed.

It isn't perfect but it will release the rest into public domain.

<comment><USER19> As you say, it's not perfect, but it would absolutely help us preserve culture beyond what is still classic 75+ years from now.

We have lost the vast majority of silent era films and more historical films will follow since it's illegal for you to save them to digital format without the explicit consent from the content creator. We won't lose _Casablanca_ or _The Seventh Seal_ since they're preserved by historical archives and companies can still make money screening them but TV-movies like _Star Wars the Holiday Special_ is only being preserved by illegal means because nobody bothers enforcing its copyright. Sure, that movie is an abomination, but film historians 100 years from now would presumably want some proof that Lucas made it and that it really was the first appearance of Boba Fett.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Relevant EFF explanation of what will happen:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never- fr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-free-mickey- thats-beside-point)

 _In 2018, the copyright on those early Mickey cartoons will end (if Congress doesn 't repeat the sins of '76 and '98, that is—and you can bet we'll be pulling out all the stops to prevent that). What happens then?

Almost nothing, if Disney and friends get their way.

title card for Steamboat Willie Those Mickey cartoons are almost certainly in the public domain anyway. In the late 1920s, copyright wasn't automatic: rightsholders had to undertake certain "formalities"—registering with the Copyright Office and displaying correctly formatted notices—and then renew those formalities periodically. Scholars who've looked into the matter make a very good case that the early Disney organization flubbed its registration, notice and renewal, and there are probably cartoons that are in the public domain today.

Which is not to say that Disney wouldn't sue you if you tried to remix them, upload them to the Internet Archive, or sell them in on a compilation DVD of other public domain cartoons from the period. They almost certainly would, and it would cost you an unthinkable sum of money to defend yourself. Emerging victorious but impoverished, you would have won a small victory.

But at that point, we expect that Disney will try to use another body of law to suppress creativity and commerce involving Mickey Mouse, whether or not "Steamboat Willie" and "Plane Crazy" are in the public domain: trademark law. If you sell something Mickeyish—including its public domain cartoons—Disney might ask a court to stop you because people who buy the cartoons from you may think they're buying from Disney. Back to court with you!_

</comment><comment><USER21> They discuss is briefly but my understanding is the copyright only protects the work itself. IE the movie steamboat willie could now be freely published by anyone with access to it? But Disney will still own the trademark and be the only entity that can produce new original Mickey Mouse content?

<comment><USER22> > ...and be the only entity that can produce new original Mickey Mouse > content?

This is confusing to me. If copyright is up on Steamboat Willie, producing derivative works based on Steamboat Willie has to be allowed, so original content that remixes and adds to Steamboat Willie to make a new cartoon must be OK.

<comment><USER23> That's correct. But Disney has trademarks around Mickey. So you can't call your work Mickey Mouse. And you may find yourself in court if your work too closely matches any of the trademarks Disney has on the Mouse. So it will be risky as Disney may wish to drown you in legal filings based not on copyright but trademarks.

<comment><USER22> You'll probably find yourself in court in any case. That doesn't mean that Disney is _right_ , just powerful.

And there is such a thing as fair use in a trademark. Being descriptive is fair use of a trademark. You can market your breadbox as being compatible with Acme Bread. And you can describe your Sherlock Holmes book as containing Sherlock Holmes and as an extension to the public domain canon.

I don't see why Mickey Mouse gets special treatment just because he's also on logos and such. Disney, at the least, is forcing a conflict between trademark law and public domain law to see what it can get away with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The basic argument is that "big content" don't seem to be pushing it, scared off by the protests against SOPA.

Honestly, I think the clickbait "why" does the article a disservice: it is a more in depth work than the 150 word bullet point with gifs that the "why" advertises.

</comment><comment><USER25> In that case I guess they'll just up the DRM on everything to make actual copyright law irrelevant.

<comment><USER5> They can't recall a bunch of extant books and DVDs.

<comment><USER25> DVDs have DRM.

<comment><USER5> In practice that DRM has been a "solved problem" for a long time. Blu-Rays have somewhat more effective protection.

<comment><USER25> You're missing the point. If Steamboat Willie was allowed to lapse out of copyright, and Disney decided to release it on DVD, _it would still be illegal to copy it_ , since that would be breaking the DRM, which is _in itself_ illegal.

Which was my original point – if they allow copyright to lapse, they'll just add more DRM to everything to make copyright irrelevant.

Copyright was never meant to make anything hard to copy, and neither is most DRM. Both are there to make it _illegal_ to copy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Most people wouldn't complain if a new category of copyright were created just for Disney, and anyone else who wants an extra 75 years. Let it be opt in. Most people understand why Disney values its mouse etc., and that it stands to lose income if copyright expires. We get it that they're a special case. We the people can live without that stuff in the public domain. Why doesn't Congress just ask us? (Or would that be unequal protection under the law?)

</comment><comment><USER27> I disagree. Disney has money, and all politicians spend at least half of their working hours soliciting money in exchange for the promise of writing laws. It will be extended.

The founders idea of patent and copyright as being meant to last as long as a working lifetime (20 years) died a long time ago. This is just one more evidence of the democracy moving to plutocracy.

Let's watch it get renewed. Then, up-vote my comment.

</comment><comment> keir-rex What does this mean in reality... You could make derivative works of the original Mickey Mouse free from copyright infringement? Would copyright still be in place for subsequent Mickey Mouse productions?

<comment><USER28> > You could make derivative works of the original Mickey Mouse free from > copyright infringement?

Yes, though be careful not to infringe on Disney's trademarks while doing so.

> Would copyright still be in place for subsequent Mickey Mouse productions?

Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think the copyright is slowly becoming irrelevant, I have a feeling that the real push is to treat copyrights the same way as patents (intelectual property), so for instance, you cannot make a cartoon with Mickey Mouse even if you make character a bit different or call it differently, or you cannot take a Disney story with slightly different characters. Basically, it won't be any more about protecting own creative work but about creating an artificial scarcity.

<comment><USER30> I don't know what you think a Disney story is, but all of Disney's major works are based on existing folk stories and other works already in the public domain.

<comment><USER31> > I don't know what you think a Disney story is, but all of Disney's major > works are based on existing folk stories and other works already in the > public domain.

False. Here's some of their animated features based on copyrighted works (as best as I can tell):

Dumbo

Bambi

Peter Pan

Lady and the Tramp

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

The Sword in the Stone

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh

The Rescuers

The Fox and the Hound

The Black Cauldron

The Great Mouse Detective

Treasure Planet (partially based on the 1987 TV miniseries Treasure Island in Outer Space)

Meet the Robinsons

The Princess and the Frog

Big Hero 6

(I'm using the list in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films), and picking out the "based on" or "inspired by" credits that look recent enough.)

<comment><USER31> Also, some of their animated movies are original, including "Lilo & Stitch" and "Zootopia".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Can't they just use trademark based enforcement if copyright extension stops?

<comment><USER20> They will, and the article addresses that (edit: see EFF article at the bottom for in-depth explanation), but they won't have the copyright to "Steamboat Willie" anymore, which is as it should be.

Disney itself benefited greatly from the Grimm Brothers and other fairy tales, they should let new generations benefit from theirs.

Edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_films_based_on_fairy_tales)

and, most importantly:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never- fr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/well-probably-never-free-mickey- thats-beside-point)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> there should be extensions to protect from gross misuse but only that, so mickey mouse in an advert could be ok but in a porno wouldn't

<comment><USER34> I imagine Disney would rather Mickey Mouse show up in porn than someone else's advertising. Mickey in porn is distasteful but realistically doesn't diminish Disney's brand. Mickey in someone else's advertising absolutely does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm surprised that people cares about this. A cartoon not becoming public property.

<comment><USER5> The "Mickey Mouse" copyright extensions affect all creative works.</comment></comment>


MPAA Welcomes Netflix as New Member - <AUTHOR> https://www.mpaa.org/press/mpaa-welcomes-netflix-as-new-member/ <comment><USER2> Remember when MPAA released a closed-source Linux distro with the intention of gathering incriminating data on university students? That was pretty weird.

<comment><USER3> I don't remember this! Do you have a source so I can get the whole story?

<comment><USER4> Not only that, the distro infringed the Xubuntu copyright too: [https://xubuntu.wordpress.com/tag/mpaa/](https://xubuntu.wordpress.com/tag/mpaa/)

<comment><USER5> That's hilarious. In trying to catch people stealing, they stole a trademarked logo.

<comment><USER6> Should have fined them damages in excess of 1 trillion dollars to the open source community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find the tribalism over copyright to be quite odd. It makes sense for many tech companies to lobby to devalue copyright, because they are in the business of profiting by distributing other peoples' content. (I forget who said it, but the principle is commoditizing your inputs.) And it makes sense for organizations like the MPAA to push back on those efforts. It's an economic, not moral battle. Netflix used to be on one side, now it's a content creator and on the other.

The moral calculus, I think, cuts the other way. People complain that Wall Street middle men don't create value, just move it around, but in the same breath assign moral superiority to companies that just move around content created by other people. Odd.

<comment> vincent-toups It seems to me that since economics is exactly about value, there cannot be an economic battle that isn't also a moral battle.

<comment><USER8> Beautifully said!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So what? Netflix included with all the other tv bloat channels? More tv content on Netflix? Better licensing deals for Netflix?

Maybe Netflix and other cooperating services will jack their prices to $20 so I can finally unsubscribe.

95% of these Made by Netflix titles suck and haven't justified the price hikes.

<comment><USER10> If $20/month is the pain point which causes you to leave Netflix, you're not the kind of customer it wants anyway.

<comment><USER11> To stay current with television entertainment one would need to subscribe to at least Netflix, HBO, Amazon and, soon, Disney. If you live in the non- anglophone part of the planet you might want to add a few on-demand providers in your local language as well.

If each charge $20 / mon that's close to $2,000 / year just for content to your television - a full payslip for many low-income people. Such prices might be justifiable to enthusiasts but not really for the general public.

<comment><USER12> > To stay current with television entertainment

You lost me here.

That's like tasking yourself with staying current with your Warhammer 40k or Magic The Gathering card collection and complaining that it's expensive. Yet you suggested TV as if it's some self-evident thing everyone wants to maximize.

<comment><USER13> I'm a cord cutter and have been for over a decade.

When I initially made the switch, I didnt use an antenna (my complaint is about commercials, not (just) the cable company). I discovered that I lost the ability to participate in a lot of water cooler talk. Even now, I didnt wat bird box, or game of thrones (at least not yet) and I was missing references to them all over the place.

Socially, groups use such references to indicate belonging. This is true in communities of varying sizes. Ergo, not participating DOES have repercussions.

I'm not saying it makes sense to break the bank, but I am saying there are social and therefore economic and other consequences.

<comment><USER12> That makes sense if you seriously can't handle the tiny adversity of not being able to engage in every single topic at the water cooler because of some social phobia.

But I don't find that very convincing otherwise.

I reinvoke my comparison to deciding you need to own every Magic The Gathering card for whatever reason you want to use. This is more obviously silly because how normalized and socially-acceptable TV obsession is in our culture, but I still don't buy that it's something remotely necessary in your life. And it seems like a popular but toxic self-limiting belief.

Just like if you were to tell me you think the reason you can't make friends is because you can't talk football at the water cooler, so you study the sport every night so that you can spout trivia at work. I would suspect some sort of social disability if you did that.

<comment><USER14> I haven't owned a TV for years. It does fairly effectively cut you out of a lot of conversations.

Historically, people lived in little villages, knew all the same people, etc. These days, TV shows and movies get used to establish a common frame of social reference between people who really don't know each other well.

A hundred years ago, you would have commented on a mutual acquaintance or an event you both attended to bond and to facilitate communication. Now, we routinely use popular media references for the same purpose.

I mostly don't care that I'm "missing out." But, yeah, there is a real social cost involved.

<comment><USER12> Sure. But you'd have to argue that the social cost is more than a few peanuts and a nickel at this hypothetical water cooler. Or worth buying multiple subscriptions + hours invested in "keeping up" with television.

<comment><USER14> That would depend on a lot of factors. We have sayings like "Its not what you know, it's who you know" for a reason and social bonding requires common ground, effective communication, etc.

This is part of why it's de facto exclusionary for "the old boys network" to engage in specific social activities that cannot readily be done by, for example, women as well in a "co-ed" fashion.

Which may not matter at all to your life, but could be the make or break for someone else's career.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Aaaaaannd I just canceled my Netflix subscription. For months I've been on the fence (and wasting money) attempting to figure out if it's actually worth it to me.

Thanks Netflix for making the choice easier.

<comment><USER16> So like just about every movie you've seen has their logo on it - do you get to the end credits see the MPAA logo and scratch your eyes out and say I just wasted my money!!!!

<comment><USER15> I pay Netflix to distribute content. The content created has paid into the MPAA and uses technology to ensure no one infringes. If Netflix is a distributor of content or essentially a dumb pipe why do they care what I do with the content after I receive it?

<comment><USER17> Netflix hasn't been a "dumb pipe" for years. They have been content co- producers since 2012 ("Lilyhammer") and producers since 2013 ("House of Cards").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't understand why they would do this, or what the benefits are. Personally it gives me a strong reason to ditch Netflix now, which is a bummer.

<comment><USER19> What's a good alternative? Their Netflix Originals are owned by them; non- original library sucks to begin with.

<comment><USER20> > What's a good alternative?

Go outside. Read a book. Spend quality time with your family.

<comment><USER19> I do those things. Also, I watch movies, which is obviously what the question addressed. I don't think your answer added anything substantive or meaningful to the conversation at all, and was at best a condescending distractor.

<comment><USER12> I don't know, I think it's a good contrast to the sort of shrill voices that crop up on this topic. Like when people complain how expensive it is once they task themselves to subscribe to every streaming TV service, as if it wasn't self-inflicted or as if the point of life is to maximize TV consumption.

We take our culture of hyper-consumption for granted so much that people scoff when you suggest "well, why not consume less? What's the big deal?"

It's not like we need more posts of people vocalizing how begrudgingly they subscribe to Netflix in every Netflix thread. As if unsubscribing is never an option. It's a bit exhausting to scroll through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> (JANUARY 22, 2019)

</comment><comment><USER22> Can someone explain me why this is good or bad?

<comment><USER23> On the bad side: the MPAA lobbies heavily for continually enlarging copyright protection (e.g. the DMCA) and aggressively pursues legal action against individuals. Netflix has deep pockets, so its membership provides the MPAA with increased funds for lobbying and legal muscle.

<comment><USER24> Netflix has deep pockets? Have you seen their balance sheet and debt obligations?

<comment><USER23> MPAA membership dues are on the order of USD 10 million per year.

<comment><USER24> Which is chomp change for any major company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Do you think Netflix will falter when Disney arrives to the steaming scene?

Do you think Netflix could be disrupted if content became cheap to produce (through new technology)?

Do you think we could lobby to get copyright terms greatly reduced? How would we go about doing so?

I'm really interested in your thoughts.

(I'm pursuing a startup to answer the second question, but I'm worried the incumbents will simply copy us if the technology works out as well as we hope.)

<comment><USER26> 1) No, Netflix is fully on track to become as good or better than its competitors at producing content at a faster pace, than competitors are becoming as good as Netflix at delivering content online.

2) No. Netflix is doing quite good against youtube. Netflix are also doing quite good in animation, which is a genre that has become much cheaper to produce in the last 20-30 years thanks to technology.

3) I don't know. Maybe. Disney has apparently given up extending copyright, so at least things are moving in the right direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Aren't the other members the ones that Netflix is disrupting in the first place? What can it hope to gain from this?

(Honest question)

<comment><USER28> It gets to be the favored disruptor, and now the MPAA will help kill any other competition in exchange for sweet deals

<comment><USER29> Yeah - the disruption is over.

You only get to win so many times until you aren't the underdog anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So Disney's jaw dropped when Netflix refused to renew the contracts for the Marvel properties, but they have enough disposable income to prop up this living dead corpse of a organization and overall money pit whose accomplishments include incompetency, copyright infringement, and piracy.

</comment><comment><USER31> The MPAA? Of "Fuck the MPAA" fame?

</comment><comment><USER32> You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

\- Harvey Dent

</comment><comment><USER33> That was enough reason for me to cancel. So long netflix!

</comment><comment><USER34> Netflix is such a sell-out. First the ISPs, now the MPAA.

<comment><USER35> Isn't selling out literally what every company in the world strives to do?

<comment><USER36> Most companies that intend to go public maybe. Private ownership and pride in what you sell does still exist in America, just takes more looking. Patagonia for example just made a decision not to support the VC vest culture any more than it already was. I've got a chain of local hardware stores that are still family owned nearby. There's tons of real Amish furniture companies that aren't looking to sell out. Just because it's the common way didn't mean it's the only or best way.

<comment><USER37> Although, to hear my friend tell it, Patagonia is still a massive military supplier. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does seem to run a bit counter to their uber eco friendly branding.

This seems to back that claim: [http://soldiersystems.net/tag/patagonia/](http://soldiersystems.net/tag/patagonia/)

<comment><USER36> They make good products and the military needs good products. I'd much rather they support the military that's generally trying to do the right thing than people trying just to make money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm not so sure I feel comfortable giving them money now.

<comment><USER24> But you felt comfortable giving them money before when that money went to MPAA members...

<comment><USER39> I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. There a is difference between being an independent content distributor and being a member of the gang.

<comment><USER17> Netflix has not been an independent content distributor for years. Here are their productions and co-productions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_dist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix).

<comment><USER39> This is true. What I meant was "independent content distributor for not their own content".

In an ideal world Netflix would not produce content and Sony would not own a movie studio.

<comment><USER17> What makes that "ideal"?

<comment><USER39> Because we would have more honest competition (and from that possibly better outcome for the consumer).

I find that a great example is Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD where the later did not have region restrictions but the first belonged to Sony who also owned a movie studio allowing large portion of the content to be never released on HD-DVD.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ray Tracing in One Weekend - <AUTHOR> http://in1weekend.blogspot.com/2016/01/ray-tracing-in-one-weekend.html <comment><USER2> If you want to learn more, the best raytracing book is [http://www.pbrt.org/](http://www.pbrt.org/) which goes into immense details about various techniques and won an Academy Award. The renderer described in the book is also available online: [https://github.com/mmp/pbrt-v3](https://github.com/mmp/pbrt-v3)

<comment><USER3> Note that the pbrt-v3 code is the updated code corresponding to the soon-to- be-released 3rd edition of the book, but the book available in bookstores is still the 2nd ed. If you like me plan on buying the book soon, you probably want to wait just a little while for 3rd ed which is due any time now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks like a slimmed down version of the book Realistic Ray Tracing writen by the same author Peter Shirley. The book is still very short ~200 pages and develops a raytracer.

[http://www.amazon.com/Realistic-Tracing-Second-Peter- Shirley...](http://www.amazon.com/Realistic-Tracing-Second-Peter- Shirley/dp/1568814615/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453952161&sr=1-4&keywords=Ray+Tracing+Peter+Shirley)

He has also written one of my favorite general introductions to computer graphics if your looking for a usable survey text that has most of the basic formulas.

[http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Computer-Graphics- Fourth-...](http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Computer-Graphics-Fourth- Marschner/dp/1482229390/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453952450&sr=1-1)

</comment><comment><USER5> The author wrote a short blog post about the process of speed-writing the book.

[http://psgraphics.blogspot.com/2016/01/process-for-speed- wri...](http://psgraphics.blogspot.com/2016/01/process-for-speed-writing- book.html)

<comment><USER6> Interesting idea of speed writing... "speed book", "agile book". Removes inertia and barriers to creation. I read through the book (just a skim for _now_). Very well done. I wonder if we will see more of this trend for certain byte-sized topics. (<\-- ...see what I did there? )

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Since then I have written a bunch of ray tracers in Pascal, Fortran, Scheme, C, C++, Java, and most recently Swift (which is awesome for writing ray tracers). "

What makes Swift so good for writing ray tracers?

<comment><USER8> What is the benefit of writing a bunch of different raytracers? Is it just an exercise to practice a new language and reenforce your understanding of raytracing fundamentals, or is there actually a notable difference?

<comment><USER9> 32 years is quite a long time in computing terms!

Both the computing tech and raytracing/graphics theory and algorithms have changed significantly over that time, with better algorithms and much more powerful computing resources allowing more brute-force/accurate stuff to be more practically done.

Writing a raytracer/renderer is also rather addictive, and it's quite cool writing something which produces something else (as is writing compilers).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Author, any way I can buy it as a PDF?

<comment><USER11> Not at present I am afraid. But I will confess I mainly pushed toward getting it done and went with kindle because I knew that platform. I will do some homework on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> BTW, if you have Kindle Unlimited, you can read it for free.

I think I know what I'm doing this weekend...

</comment><comment><USER13> The sections listed don't cover acceleration structures. Thats critical to performance on scenes of any complexity. Otherwise it looks like a decent introduction.

<comment><USER14> They do mention BVH and then the image in the link goes on to mention KD- trees. It's a ray tracer in a weekend. This I think is plenty to start with.

<comment><USER13> I missed the mention of BVH - good enough. At the end it says something about performance, which can't be achieved without something like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this leveraging the GPU? Or is it more about the theory of computing realistic images, without regard to performance?

<comment><AUTHOR> The latter, it's about getting quick wins, getting up and running as fast as possible, and having enough of a framework and enough fun by the end to be motivated and capable of exploring any of the advanced topics for research or production rendering that might tickle your fancy.</comment></comment>


Why Every Developer Should Keep a Daily Code Journal - <AUTHOR> https://veamly.co/developer-journal <comment><USER2> Good idea although realistically this won't be an easy habit to form.

I find that you can achieve essentially the same thing by just using git often. I commit as often as every 15 minutes. It takes literally 10 seconds. Why not?

Then the next day all I do is read the log and there is your journal.

<comment><USER3> I'll disagree. Like code comments vs code, actual descriptive text can cover much more than just commit messages.

I keep a daily work journal, and I write down:

\- What I was working on

\- Who I talked to, and about what

\- Problems I ran into

\- How I solved those problems

\- Useful techniques and snippets I came up with

\- Where I left off today, and where I need to pick up tomorrow

<comment><USER2> Personally I use a notebook for a checklist so it's in front of me at all times.

I keep any helpful notes in a format that I can search through. Just a folder with a bunch of txt files that I than use FZF to comb through.

And I use git as a journal to jog my memory about what I was working on and general project progression.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Lock as a Service - <AUTHOR> https://www.lockasaservice.com <comment> tony-allan I love simple idea's like this!

Two things would be useful here.

1\. Dynamic update (WebSocket or SSE) 2\. An API

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll look into doing dynamic update. There is an API for this, I'll add some docs to the site on how to call it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> We're one step closer to `println` as a service.</comment>


US Government launches new approach to fight on poverty - <AUTHOR> https://www.hud.gov/envisioncenters <comment><AUTHOR> The Detroit launch was yesterday, headlined by Dr. Ben Carson, Mayor Mike Duggan, coach Lou Holtz, Detroit native Jerome "The Bus" Bettis, Chris Lambert (founder of "Life Remodeled") and several other notable speakers.

Detroit has suffered for many years, hopefully this will start things in a new and successful direction.</comment>


What are some fun project ideas in machine learning? :) - <AUTHOR> Behold, a thread where people who wish some machine learning-based webservice, library/framework or application existed meet people who are looking for a fun project idea to implement! Pure magic. <comment><USER2> I have an idea of a project involving Machine Learning, applied to the game of chess:

You would need a large database of chess games and a program that can detect some features in a position (for example: "white are a pawn up", "black pawn structure is better", "black king is not safe", etc.).

The idea would be to see if some features in a position are making one side more likely to win. For example, we might find that being a piece up makes one side more likely to win, since the largest majority of the cases when one side had a piece up, it ended up winning.

But that's not an interesting result. What I would like to see if it's possible to discover features that are good for one side, and which we didn't know about.

I didn't have time to start anything about it, though.

<comment><USER3> Have you checked out chess problems and go problems? They're usually presented in bulk in structured data. <http://www.chessproblems.com/> I haven't look at any in a long time, but it at least should highlight some problems hard for humans, which implies something can be learned there, imho.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the link, but that's not exactly what I wanted. The chess problem you are showing are some composition problem: someone creating a position where it is possible to checkmate in two moves, but the moves are very unintuitive and the position is completely unnatural, which is very hard for a human player to find the solution. A computer, on the other hand, will have no problem to find it by brute force.

What I want is something different: mining tons of games to learn new stuff about positional strength in chess. For example, assume that we don't know that a queen is stronger than a knight, and instead think that the two pieces have the same value. We would trade those two pieces more or less indifferently, resulting in lots of games where one side has a queen and the other side has a knight. Now, the program I would like to do will mine all those games and say "99% of the cases where one side had a queen and the other side had a knight were a win for the side with the queen". And we would be able to learn that a queen is stronger to a knight... Now obviously this example is too simple, but I would like to see if it is possible to learn some more subtle things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I posted some a little while ago: [http://blog.andrewcantino.com/blog/2012/04/22/machine- learni...](http://blog.andrewcantino.com/blog/2012/04/22/machine-learning- project-ideas/)

<comment><USER5> Very cool.

Just wondering out loud reg. your idea to a have a rick roll detector: How exactly would that work? A brute force approach would be to compare how similar the target video is to some sample rick roll videos, I am guessing music matching could be attempted since frame by frame duplicate detection of the video is insanely hard.

From a machine learning perspective, it gets harder because a good rick roll entices the target into clicking the link which turns out to be a false positive. On the other hand, the link could be completely normal so the features of the link itself or not necessarily useful. Hmmm...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here are the final projects for CS 229: Machine Learning at Stanford.

<http://cs229.stanford.edu/projects2012.html>

Take any of these studies, and try to replicate or extend it. They're all pretty interesting and come with the advantage that you get to see how someone else approached the problem as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is very helpful and what I was looking for. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Animal sound detector

Speech recognition for cows,dogs,birds etc.

Moo,chirp,meow

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoah, sounds interesting! What could it be for, any applications in mind?

<comment><USER8> maybe a birdwatcher app. because mostly birdwatchers do not see their targets but only hear it.

and of course a siri plugin: hey siri, what sound/song is that?</comment></comment></comment>