Substring Removal Game with Python and JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.ezzeddinabdullah.com/posts/substring-removal-game-with-python-and-javascript <comment><USER2> Page is not readable in Safari on iOS 13.7. The left margin of the text is outside of the left margin of the viewport and cannot be brought into view with scroll nor zoom either.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for noting this issue. I guess I will have to fix that to be more responsive for mobile screens.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> 800-point codeforces problem

</comment><comment><USER3> isn't this problem mapped to a FSM?

<comment><USER4> If you don't care about performance due to constant factors, then yes. Otherwise, no.</comment></comment>


Jan. 1: A Good Day to Die  - <AUTHOR> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/01/jan-1-a-.html

<comment><USER2> A friend who considers himself a "progressive" and lumps both the Democrats and Republicans together under the label of "corporate shills" favors the estate tax because he fears a concentration of power. If those who inherited billions simply bought lots of houses, cars, and boats, he would have little issue. However, he's concerned that democracy requires a more even wealth distribution. I don't necessarily agree, but I thought his point that a concentration of power is what ought to be feared is worth consideration.

A few years ago, my wife and I toured the summer "cottages" of the Vanderbilts and others in Newport, RI. At the turn of the century, they spent millions constructing homes that they planned only to occupy for about three months of the year. Today, Anderson Cooper (son of Gloria Vanderbilt) is probably the richest of the heirs to this fortune -- hardly a great case for the estate tax. In the 70's, there was a Vanderbilt family reunion at Vanderbilt University. Of the 100 or so people who attended, none reported to even to be a millionaire. Perhaps a family tree with many siblings per branch divides wealth faster than it can multiply over time?

Until recently, a Rockefeller was the Governor of WV, but no one seemed to care that he was not a self-made man. Surely the majority of West Virgina residents would have little in common with his ancestry. Can anyone cite any cases of old money abusing power? One could point to the Bush family, but I argue that they aren't especially wealthy by current US standards. Didn't "W" claim only $8M in assets at election time? However, He is a third generation elected official. Perhaps power is more easily inherited than wealth?

<comment><USER3> If the federal government was truly concerned about a "concentration of power," then why isn't it concerned with itself? It is the most powerful entity on the planet, exercising coercion and destruction on a massive scale. Taxing people's estates at death on money that's already been taxed is preposterous. This is an example of the government using coercion to raise money for itself and nothing more. This is the type power one should be concerned about.

<comment><USER4> It's really not that strange that inheritance is taxed. People get emotional about it because of death is involved. But in the end it's a matter of money changing hands - even if one of them is cold.

<comment><USER5> people get emotional about it because making your childrens' lives better is one of the _fundamental human motivations for collecting resources_.

<comment><USER4> That might be. But that still doesn't change the fact that your children aren't you. If you're hire your son or daughter to work for you then they still have to pay taxes.

I don't like taxes anymore than the next guy. I just don't like the idea that Mr. X should be better of than Mr. Y because Mr. X's grand parents where more successful. You should be able to provide for your children, but it should not excuse them from participating in society themselves.

<comment><USER6> Mr. X will be better off then Mr. Y because his grand parents were concerned with his education, were able to provide guidance, had influence, were well respected, etc. Why do we allow all other forms of inequality than money?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would be supremely interested to see a Nate Silver style analysis of deaths of wealthy persons during 2010, to see if there is a statistically significant jump.

Personally speaking, I'm split on my opinion of the estate tax. On one hand, it helps fulfill the mostly empty promise of a true meritocracy. But considering the various horrors associated with the spending of taxpayer money, I'm fully sympathetic with those who are opposed to the tax.

The estate tax would likely be more acceptable if the deceased were able to provide some amount of direction in their wills about the use of the collected tax revenue, but I suppose that would open up a whole can of worms.

<comment><USER8> _The estate tax would likely be more acceptable if the deceased were able to provide some amount of direction in their wills about the use of the collected tax revenue, but I suppose that would open up a whole can of worms._

Actually, they can do exactly that by donating their estate to charity instead of bequeathing it to their heirs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A difference of plus or minus 50 deaths doesn't seem like enough to be a trend. It could just be chance.

That said the full paper is much more interesting than the brief example in the submitted link:

<http://www.bus.umich.edu/OTPR/WP2001-3paper.pdf></comment>


Myspace says all music uploaded to site from 2003 to 2015 has been lost - <AUTHOR> https://techerati.com/news-hub/myspace-says-all-music-uploaded-to-site-from-2003-to-2015-has-been-lost/ <comment><USER2> There's an old saying about lending money: "Never lend anybody money if you're not prepared to lose it."

Similarly: "Never store anything of value in somebody else's keeping if you're not prepared to lose it." That means files, money, jewellery, your spouse, etc, etc, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19417640](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19417640)</comment>


Large Countable Ordinals, Part 1 - <AUTHOR> https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/large-countable-ordinals-part-1/ <comment><AUTHOR> Also recommended are the two other articles in this series:

[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/large- counta...](https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/large-countable- ordinals-part-2/)

[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/large- counta...](https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/large-countable- ordinals-part-3/)

</comment><comment><USER2> This is great - like Wikipedia but with explanation instead of facts that are impenetrable to those who don't already understand. There's a startup called Arbital ([https://arbital.com/](https://arbital.com/)) working on similar posts to this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Recently watched the _Extremly large numbers_ [1] youtube series, which nicely complements Baez's series with examples.

(Quick follow up question, as far as I understand, there should be a way to understand large cardinals as recursion, so I wonder if there is a (ultra-) finitist account of large cardinals.)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq2BxAJZ4Tc&list=PLUZ0A4xAf7...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq2BxAJZ4Tc&list=PLUZ0A4xAf7nkaYHtnqVDbHnrXzVAOxYYC)

</comment><comment><USER4> Is it just me or has HN been having a lot more math submissions lately? Physics too (which stands on the shoulders of math.) It's kind of whimsical to me, because I am transitioning to becoming a professional mathematician, as a programmer of 15 years.</comment>


Gitlab: Defending CI/CD Security - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/11/19/defend-cicd-security/ <comment><USER2> GitLab employee, thanks for sharing this article!</comment>


I made a game (Python in 30 Days - Day 11) - <AUTHOR> http://rodriguezcommaj.com/python-in-30-days-day-11/

<comment><USER2> nice one. You are learning from zed's LPTHW?</comment>


Website traders get rich quick - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/website-traders-get-rich-quick/2008/07/31/1217097391233.html

<comment><USER2> I still think reason stories like this make the papers is because they are so rare. Yes, it sounds easy, and get rich quick, but the graveyard is full others not so fortunate.

Turning any business around effectively still requires skill and knowledge of the market and methods.

In a way, this article reminds me of other I read of people that buy poorly advertised items on eBay (poor description, no pictures) and turn them around for profit simply by putting up more detailed information and high quality images.

Essentially anyone can do it (low barrier to entry etc.), but the difference between those that do it well and make good money and those that can't/don't really is often down to persistence, practice, more practice, and yet more practice, and in many cases fortunate timing. The fundamental lessons of flipping houses, flipping websites, or flipping any commodity seem to be the same.

I wonder how this can apply to flipping start-ups.

<comment><USER3> In the Internet landscape, sometimes there were opportunities literally lying on the floor. Remember domain names? Anyone could buy a good .com name and make a fortune few years later, without any business model. Later, there were expired domains with high traffic...people just discovered them, picked them up and made a fortune again.

The point is, that there were finite number of such opportunities, and this I think applies to this article as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm really cynical about the numbers SEO people and internet entrepreneurs give to reporters.

There are a few missing pieces as well. Sure the dude bought a website, but how's the rest of the business being run? It's not just a "website", it's a whole store. They're going to have inventory to manage, suppliers to deal with, etc, etc.

It's possible they solved the inventory problem by letting their suppliers drop ship things, but there's still quite a bit of effort required for something like that.

<comment><USER5> I read the article earlier and the picture with it had the guys who bought the bird cage site with about 5 big ass birdcages in the background.

I guess they're doing their own inventory.

 _Edit:_ This article was linkjacked (i.e. stolen) from the nytimes. Here's the link: <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/technology/29flip.html>

The picture and the birdcage are there.

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... This article was linkjacked (i.e. stolen) from the nytimes ..."_

No just reprinted in a local newspaper and fully attributed. This is no different to physical print newspapers reprinting articles from foreign newspapers. Individual newspapers don't have access to every piece of news. They also reprint material to place their own advertising. Though you might have thought Sitepoint being a Melbourne based company, "The Age" would have printed the story and not the other way around. Reading through the entire article the majority of the content is US based companies using this idea to make money.

Is "NYT" simply reflecting the "make money" signal New York emits? It might also explain why "The Age" hasn't bothered and why Melbourne is the "Artichoke-end" of the Startup world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Check out <http://marketplace.sitepoint.com/> \- it has a bunch of websites for sale.

I went there after reading NY Times article a couple days ago.. its the largest such marketplace. "$729k in websites sold in 18 months". All and all, kind of cool, but still an emerging industry. Reminds me of domain names a few years back. If you can code well, you can probably make a lot more money selling sites to clients who have money.

The opportunities I saw: 1) Buy a site that has traffic existing customers/visitors (will cost 1-3X profits). This could be a way to validate a product/service idea, and then make it better. 2) Build scripts for websites that you can license repeatedly for $200-$1k.

<comment><USER7> I've shopped for and sold a web business on the SitePoint marketplace (went for around $3K), and it's a fairly decent way to make money.

Many people operate by building quick affiliate based sites, growing traffic and then selling it with "proven income" to someone for 1-3K 6 months (or less time depending on how good you are at driving traffic).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like the article, and it certainly got me thinking, but it understates the level of skill required to revamp a poorly done website.

To make that type of money flipping sites, you need to spot the right opportunities and make all the right improvements: programming, design, copywriting, marketing, SEO, and optimizing the conversion process.

Anyone with the ability to do all these things well deserves to make money. I'm also skeptical that finding a buyer who can pay 6 figures is as easy as posting to SitePoint.

</comment><comment><USER9> With something like this, I feel like if it has hit the papers, it's too late.

Better luck next time.

</comment><comment><USER10> >> the latest wave of entrepreneurs who, like the day traders and real estate investors before them, are looking to make a lot of money without much effort.

The article pertains to a different breed of online 'entrepreneurs', called salvagers.

In the 'ground-up' startup world, the reality is not the same. It's not as simple as it sounds. Building a startup and running it profitably is equally difficult (and self-satisfactory) as running a brick-and-mortar business.

Btw, here's the original NYT article: <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/technology/29flip.html>

</comment><comment><USER11> I am surprised there aren't more hackers here openly flipping sites in this manner, especially the most entrepreneurial ones. Maybe it's a hacker's best kept secret. Forget coding from scratch, angels, VCs and team members, just do the flip.

<comment><USER12> _I am surprised there aren't more hackers here openly flipping sites in this manner_

I think it's because of two factors, as the article mentions:

" _Creating the value, though, is the tricky part._ "

and

" _The average selling price of Web sites on eBay was $78 last month._ "

<comment><USER11> but I mean hackers can do a better job than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So this is "Hacker News"? i.e. site for HACKERS to hang out?

Where stories about weight loss, Hollywood-grade entertainment industry rumors and get-rich-quick speculators routinely get voted up to the top, while kick- ass Rails API documentation site I submitted yesterday was not even noticed.

What's next? Britney's next pregnancy prediction?

<comment><USER14> The site is for entrepreneurs, mainly. As such, this article is completely relevant.

Maybe Rails isn't that popular here. (Personally I'm not crazy about it.) And Rails docs aren't really "news", are they?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So out of interest, what do you think is the proportion of people who really know what they are doing vs the wannabes?

I think that those of us with our collection of domain names are going to see an exponential increase in value over the next two quarters. The question is, how bothered are all of you about the impending Get Rich quick rush.

<comment><USER16> So far the Get Rich Quick crowd seems to have focused their attention on the website marketplace sites like SitePoint, which drives up sale prices for those who are willing to find sites to sell in other (smarter but harder) ways.</comment></comment>


The Internet of Things Is Wildly Insecure — And Often Unpatchable - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/01/theres-no-good-way-to-patch-the-internet-of-things-and-thats-a-huge-problem/

<comment><AUTHOR> "But this time the problem is much worse, because the world is different: All of these devices are connected to the Internet. The computers in our routers and modems are much more powerful than the PCs of the mid-1990s, and the Internet of Things will put computers into all sorts of consumer devices. The industries producing these devices are even less capable of fixing the problem than the PC and software industries were."</comment>


Elements: Twitter for images - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2009/02/08/lunarrs-elements-is-a-twitter-like-tool-to-stoke-the-imagination/

<comment><USER2> the screenshot shows the image with a url where it was hosted originally, but the text of the article suggests that you're supposed to be uploading images.

so is this an image bookmarking site like ffffound.com or another image uploading site like tinypic.com or twitpic.com?

</comment><comment><USER3> Man to have been a fly on the wall at that VC partner meeting.</comment>


The Oracle v. Google aftermath - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/oracle-v-google-aftermath-apis-remain-free-cost-of-business-soars/ <comment><USER2> "But a company like Google has the resources to fight dubious patents. When the average patent case is costing $5 million and up, the real cost is to the small companies, the startups."

<comment><USER3> Isn't this why all the relevant startups steer clear from USA? ;)</comment></comment>


Open Letter to Coursera Founder Daphne Koller - <AUTHOR> http://cucfa.org/news/2013_may10.php

<comment><USER2> His suggestion that he and Koller co-teach the course is a cop-out. She should call his bluff, but then design a course of instruction that isn't cherry- picked to support the conclusion that state college professors ought to have complete job security.</comment>


DIY A/B Split Testing Using PHP and MYSQL - <AUTHOR> http://www.microfitgroup.com/blog/business-development/web-development/diy-ab-split-testing-using-php-and-mysql/

<comment><USER2> And some wider perspective: "Practical Guide to Controlled Experiments on the Web: Listen to Your Customers not to the HiPPO" <http://exp- platform.com/hippo.aspx> (downloadable pdf).

I know, its from Microsoft. And worth reading.</comment>


Show HN: SweeperCraft – design your own Minesweeper board - <AUTHOR> https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepercraft/ <comment><AUTHOR> A few sample boards:

Hello [https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepe...](https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepercraft/#rows/8/columns/16/layout/aabcqKjIFLjcsKjgqKiaaa)

All you need is [https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepe...](https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepercraft/#rows/8/columns/32/layout/aaaaaea8qN5aqKjaqejcFebcqKbaqIraFJWyFGaaaaa)

Smile! [https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepe...](https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepercraft/#rows/16/columns/16/layout/aaaaaaaaaaaeiaaaaaaaaaaaeaGieaqGa8aaaaaaaaa)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a sample app for a new type of web framework we are working on: [https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/tree/master/treeCompon...](https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/tree/master/treeComponentFramework)

The long term vision is 1 syntax for web components, html, css, javascript, etc. All state should be viewable/dumpable via a simple toString() method.

Feedback on either is welcome!

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the trip down memory lane playing Minesweeper again. I found a bug - the timer keeps on ticking after I have completed the game and it says there are -1 bombs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh no! I'm unable to reproduce. Could you share the game url you played?

[https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/88](https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/88)

<comment><USER2> [https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepe...](https://jtree.treenotation.org/treeComponentFramework/sweepercraft/#rows/9/columns/9/layout/eGaaqrIqqaeaaa)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I still can't reproduce (screenshot added here: [https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/88](https://github.com/treenotation/jtree/issues/88))

Do you mind sharing your OS/Browser/Device? Any errors in dev tools console? Possible to send a screenshot?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This brings back 30 year old memories. :)</comment>


Never Buy a Teacup Pig (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/never-buy-teacup-pig/ <comment><USER2> CRISPR has you covered: "scientists warn that they may be a distraction from more serious research" \- understandable, they're really cute - I'd be distracted, too.

[http://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-micropigs-to-be- sold-...](http://www.nature.com/news/gene-edited-micropigs-to-be-sold-as-pets- at-chinese-institute-1.18448)

</comment><comment><USER3> I emphasise sincerity.

For the pigs in this case, slaughter them.

I mean this, as friends that do this: Have a pig for around 9 months to a year (they do grow fast, I understand most pork sold is from 3-9 month old pigs) living and kicking around on the farm. Well fed, well raised. And appreciate the meat, and not as a commodity.

</comment><comment><USER4> One of my neighbors bought one, I saw her out walking with it and asked her what she was going to do with it when it was 200 lbs. She didn't believe it would get that big, but it did. I never did find out what happened to it.

Given the popularity it seems there would be a "market" for a small breed of pig. But if small ponies is any example it would not be a good deal for the animal.

</comment><comment><USER5> Awesome term, with wide applicability in computing!

\- teacup text editor

\- teacup web browser

\- teacup programming language

\- teacup kernel

...

<comment><USER6> > \- teacup text editor

My .emacs file started teacup size. It's 25+ years old now, and 200# heavier, but I still love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> SO I can't help but wonder, why can't we breed real Teacup Pigs? We can breed real Teacup dogs, tiny cats, hell we can even breed tame foxes and even Miniature cattle[1]

If there really is such a big market, any many pig owners love their pets, why doesn't someone actually selectively breed for tiny adults?

[1] [http://www.naturalhub.com/grow_meat_breeds_cattle_small.htm](http://www.naturalhub.com/grow_meat_breeds_cattle_small.htm)

<comment><USER8> Two thoughts:

1\. I'm not sure we've tried. Maybe it's possible, but we've never tried.

2\. If we have tried, and it hasn't worked, it's possible there's not enough genetic diversity in pigs. Dogs have an enormous amount of genetic diversity, which is part of why we've been able to get breeds that look like entirely different species. There are many breeds of cats, but I haven't seen any that are as radically different as, say, a chihuahua and a mastiff. We bred tame foxes, but they weren't radically different from wild foxes. (The different physical traits, I think, were their ears were floppy, and some retained juvenile markings into adulthood - similar to dogs.)

<comment><USER9> We're really close, actually. The Chinese have bred pigs that weigh ~30 pounds when mature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If it weren't for the ridiculous prices, I'd think that this could be a good way to get some meat for the table. But those prices are _insane_.

<comment><USER11> If they're just selling normal piglets under false name, you should be able to get them far cheaper when sold as such.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >many unscrupulous breeders actively tell new owners to drastically underfeed their new pigs in order to keep them pint-sized.

Are there different animal cruelty laws for pigs than dogs?

<comment><USER13> Considering you can't buy dog meat at the grocery store, there are certainly exceptions carved out for "livestock" animals versus pets. As far as I can tell, those exemptions are by species and not by "purpose."

The ASPCA indicates that most states specifically exempt specific species from cruelty laws. [https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/farm-animal- cruelty/lega...](https://www.aspca.org/fight-cruelty/farm-animal- cruelty/legal-protections-farm-animals)

Googling a bit, I found California Penal Code 597.3, which contains one example of specific exemption in a live-animal retail scenario. "Provide that no animal will be dismembered, flayed, cut open, or have its skin, scales, feathers, or shell removed while the animal is still alive." In a subsection, any poultry species is specifically exempted.

I am not a lawyer and I am having trouble focusing between legalese and descriptions of cruel acts, so I am going to stop hunting for examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is cloud computing a teacup pig?

<comment><USER15> "Microservices"

They grow up into complex systems that no one was expecting.

/s</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Web-based personal terminal options? - <AUTHOR> I've just needed to ssh into a VPS to fix something pretty urgently but my laptop was on the fritz and held me up. Obviously a big single point of failure problem!
I don't have any other physical machines that I could give ssh key access as backup..
There must be a web-based personal terminal provider that you can set up on a permanent basis? Then you could access it from anywhere, even when out with mobile etc. But I'm not sure which to go with/trust.
Or do most people just have a cheap secondary laptop? <comment><USER2> I use android phone with termux or juicessh and hacker keyboard app. Also pretty much every phone should work with tiny foldable Bluetooth keyboard.

If you want a mobile kit for hotel room without carrying laptop there you can try some HDMI screen mirroring dongle (Google Cast).

</comment><comment><USER3> There are a lot of potential security problems with setting something like what you describe, but it is very possible.

If you wanted, you could run [https://github.com/huashengdun/webssh](https://github.com/huashengdun/webssh) on the sever you are trying to access, or something equivalent to a Boston server. This is something you should definitely host with TLS, and some form of authentication.

You could use something like this: [https://github.com/PHPAuth/PHPAuth](https://github.com/PHPAuth/PHPAuth) You could also use Okta.

<comment><USER4> What are these security problems?

<comment><USER3> A good place to start looking would be [https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Proje...](https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_Top_Ten_Project)

The steps I described would mitigate most of those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I built my own, Using codemirror.

NodeJs for the server which spawns a process to execute bash commands.

[https://twitter.com/fasturdotcom](https://twitter.com/fasturdotcom)

</comment><comment> a-saleh I use my phone. I have termux on android, with password protected ssh-key and it did save me a few times.

I assume there is something like that for iOS, or other phones.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use google cloud shell all the time and it works really well. It spins up an ephemeral container, but it persists the home directory.

</comment><comment><USER7> What you described would be hideously insecure. Get a backup laptop.

<comment><AUTHOR> Alright - thank you!</comment></comment>


Beyond Fake News and Threats to Journalists - <AUTHOR> http://www.netopia.eu/beyond-fake-news-threats-life-work-journalists/ <comment><AUTHOR> There was a previous event which concentrated on Lygenpresse, this is moving on from that with the reported increase in attacks on Journos.</comment>


Peter Thiel (PayPal co-founder) has a solution to the global crisis - <AUTHOR> http://blog.trejdify.com/2012/04/peter-thiel-has-solution-to-global.html

<comment><USER2> This article is so poorly written it's hard for me to figure out what it's talking about.

"The problem today with the world economy, according to Peter Thiel, is that we are not moving forward[.]"

"The problem seems to be regulations. "

"The biggest problem for the US and Europe is how to restart growth."

"The problem is that the current US government doesn't have a five-year plan as the socialist governments had - it has no plan whatsoever!"

"The biggest problem against restarting growth is the high energy prices."

99 Problems and Good Writing Ain't One.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its supposed to be a summary - but I might change that (iterating forward...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a poorly written blog post. I am not at all convinced of anything. The only reason I could think of for it having appeared on the top of HN is that it mentioned Pieter Thiel and Ron Paul.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its supposed to be a summary of what may be needed - but its the basic idea that we can't really progress because of regulations

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whatever.

Look, nothing he talked about created the financial situation we are in now. In fact, the lack of regulations on wall street is what did us in.

He credits technological progress in the 1930s for getting us out of the Great Depression and not government spending. I think Mr Thiel needs to go back school (the ones he has been crapping on for the past few years.)

<comment><AUTHOR> It depends - with less regulations we might have had more progress and less borrowed money. I think he said in the lecture that Wall Street needed more regulations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The problem seems to be regulations._

Wow I'm shocked that that is Peter Thiel's solution.

 _Another example is the Golden Gate Bridge. It took 3.5 years to build the bridge in the 1930s. They are currently building an access highway on one of the tunnels that feeds into the bridge, and it will take at least 6 years to complete._

We also had a much murkier concept of human rights and workplace safety back then. You can't have it both ways. I would like to see someone push Peter Thiel to admit that building at that speed again would require rolling back many of the work rules we've put in place over the last century.

Debate about the merits of things like workplace safety, don't just throw your hands up and say "we don't build things as fast any more!" because that's somewhat of a disingenuous argument.

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe the title should rather say that Peter Thiel is a political person. I am myself, but it seems to me that everybody who is, whether left or right wing, think that they have the solution to the current -- or any -- crisis.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - but I think this "solution" is different compared to raising taxes or lowering taxes - and it also involves some good points on energy

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> >>Inequality has only been ended through communist revolution, war or deflationary economic collapse.

Is the closing line. If the economy collapses or we are run by a politburo there will still be inequality.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - we will always have inequality - but the inequality today are at the same levels as 1789.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find a detailed comparison of Linux distros? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Distrowatch has a good summary of most distributions. I don't believe you can do side by side, but of you want to click through various distros it might be a good resource.

[https://distrowatch.com/](https://distrowatch.com/)

<comment><USER3> Is a total count of distros given anywhere in distrowatch? I tried using search with no filters, but in the returned list, I couldn't find DamnSmallLinux, so I guess it wasn't complete.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Try Googling for comparisons between Linux distros (e.g., Debian vs. Ubuntu) and you get dozens of hits that are about 200 words and talk about the GUI and package installer. I want to know more than just the topical issues. I know that some distros compile with different networking #defines, others have different service control, and important low-level stuff... But it seems there isn't a deep-dive out there, just lots and lots of chaff.

<comment><USER4> It sounds like you have quite the wish list in mind. Feel free to make a list of what's missing from [https://linuxreviews.org/Debian](https://linuxreviews.org/Debian)

I'm not sure how much detail most people want, but know I need a better checklist for what should and should not be included in a distribution review.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok this link is kinda "ick": the first page is a waifu anime and softcore lesbian graphic. WTF is this shit?

<comment><USER4> Thank you for your feedback. I removed the problematic anime graphics from that page.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Magnus Carlsen Beats Fabiano Caruana to Win World Chess Championship - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/sports/magnus-carlsen-fabiano-caruana-world-chess-championship.html <comment><USER2> In the end, Carlsen is the man who knows the best how to win in chess. Regardless of all critics.

He played the 12th game safe knowing he's a huge favourite in rapid and blitz. Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves.

Under these conditions it's more than sensible to move into the terrain where you have an advantage, if thinking strategically.

I would argue the problem is that most of the fans have become conditioned to expect entertainment, drama and bold moves in sports like we see in overly dramatic movies.

But historically, if you consider generals or even have a look into Sun Tzu's art of war, the strategists and generals that were most regarded were the ones who were able to win in a manner that it seemed easy, unimpressive, without drama or heavy losses or huge risks involved.

That's what a great strategy is about taking battle where the outcome is decided beforehand. And that's what Carlsen did.

The downside is it cost him €50k as the money distribution goes to 550/450 in tiebreak from 600/400 if decided in classical.

So he exchanged a potential loss of €200k at a favourable odds for a sure loss of €50k with potential loss of €150k at a much better odds. Now here's where we could question his decision speculating what the actual odds were, but who knows if he cares about the money.

I enjoyed this final a lot.

<comment><USER3> I can't argue with your first premise. Your following points, however, are less convincing.

"Like Kasparov and Grischuk pointed out today, every other chess player gets worse playing rapid/blitz but Carlsen is the only one who actually improves."

Even if Kasparov and Grischuk said this today (citation please?), it doesn't make it true. There are _many_ players who get better playing rapid and blitz. Look at the trajectory of the Bay Area's own GM Daniel Naroditsky. Nakamura.

I suspect most of the blitz haters are people who simply haven't spent enough time to get good at it.

"Regardless of all critics."

To your main point, the critics weren't saying that Carlsen isn't the best. They were complaining because he is not acting with respect to the purity and beauty of the game. There is simply an aesthetic ugliness to offering a draw with such a crushing time advantage in a better position.

I'm not arguing that this may not have been good strategy, lose the battle, win the war, etc etc.

What I'm saying is that there is a war to be won that is different than a 1 or 0 point. It's the battle for hearts and minds, which is won not just through victory but through integrity and courage. You win hearts by showing hearts.

Magnus didn't win hearts with his mercilessly pragmatic approach to winning the world championship title. I still respect him as the rightful owner of the title of best chess player in the world.

But if we're going to employ the "good by association" logical fallacy with whatever Kasparov and Grischuk may have said today, why not actually just quote the champion Magnus himself?

In the press conference, he came out and told everyone that Fabiano earned the right to share the crown of world's best player in classical chess with him.

Who am I, who are you, who are any of us to disagree with that?

I also enjoyed the final a lot. But the fact remains that the beauty and spectacle 2018 World Championships of the world's most beautiful mind game was marred by a decidedly un-beautiful game in round 12.

<comment><USER2> You make a good point, but I don't think he's playing for hearts. They play for money and recognition in the first place. Every sportsman who experienced a failure (and we all have) knows very well that while you're applauded at the top the moment you lose many, including your fans will suddenly rejoice ... sometimes you even get some "kicks while on the ground."

About the Grischuk and Kasparov quote, it turns out I did misrepresent ... Grischuk said that Carlsen's URS score gap for rapid and blitz "should" be negative in a live stream on chess24 and Kasparov tweeted a similar thing ... where I misrepresented is that Kasparov didn't say a word "improve" but see "his ratio is smallest ever"

[https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1067826806823297029](https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1067826806823297029) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBvQ36SqgqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBvQ36SqgqM)

To quote Carlsen himself "Some people think that if their opponent plays a beautiful game, it's OK to lose. I don't. You have to be merciless."

It's just the way he is and I not only don't blame him for it I personally respect it.

A good example is boxing. You have someone like Mayweather who is 50:0 a historical record. Yet he's often hated by fans because his boxing isn't exciting. It's also true that most fans would rejoice if he lost ... so why take risks? Many purists enjoy his style including myself.

In the end prize-fighting is about winning. It's their living. If Carlsen loses but plays a beautiful game none of the fans will pay for his livelihood - I am confident in stating this.

<comment><USER3> I can't argue with your logic here. We do live in a world where people say winning isn't everything. But actually, it is. It's not just happening in chess. This is the same "win at all costs" mentality that gave us the wonders of "growth hacking" i.e. unethical behavior that becomes glorified in Silicon Valley, because it works.

I don't mean to get all Ghandi-like on you, but I do want to ask you sincerely - what kind of world do _you_ want to create? Do you want to help turn Silicon Valley into a culture that values class and heart, not just winning? I certainly do. Nothing wrong with winning, but I gotta believe that winning and sportsmanship/heart aren't mutually exclusive, even in the age of Facebook.

If you feel the same way, then ask yourself what kind of culture you are promoting in your comments. The change doesn't start with the powers that be all of a sudden deciding to pay people for integrity. The guys at the top are all too rich and powerful to advocate such blasphemy. The only way this changes is when the masses start telling each other that things should be different and can be different.

Which starts with holding people accountable when they let us down. Including the legends like Magnus Carlsen, who I consider to be a hero, along with the other chess players who could be worthy of the GOAT moniker. (Including, now, Fabiano. Even more so Fabi if he can get himself into shape playing blitz.)

<comment> david-gpu If you want to encourage more exciting games then you need to reward those who play them. E.g. have judges subjectively award points like it's done in sports like gymnastics.

<comment><USER4> > If you want to encourage more exciting games then you need to reward those > who play them

And that seems to be exactly what is happening by respecting those who do / looking down on those who don't. Not every reward has to be expressed by the in-game scoring system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just want to give a mention to ChessNetwork on Twitch[1].

I watched many of the games of this series live via this channel, and it was great how the commentator had his own board to demonstrate the next few moves and explain the players' thinking. It was really interesting and relaxing.

[https://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork](https://www.twitch.tv/chessnetwork)

<comment><USER6> Jerry is a phenomenal chess instructor. His latest video on tactical awareness[1] explains more in 2 hours than you might learn in a thousand games at the board.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzGKPxJ5NYI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzGKPxJ5NYI)

<comment><USER7> Wow, you're not kidding. He's basically ticking off many of my lingering questions one by one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You may recognize RebeccaHarris from Lichess, but for those who don't: I'm GM Daniel Naroditsky, senior at Stanford and - like all of us - still wrapping my head around the massacre we just witnessed in Rapid.

I had a feeling this would happen, though I have gotten the better of Magnus in bullet on Lichess with a mix of wild play and lucky tactics.

Speaking of which, I've been involved in beta-testing the killer online bullet chess interface which is being developed by mindgam3, mentioned here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18554909](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18554909)

This software is going to crush it. As someone with little programming experience myself, I dare to say that we need to bring online chess to the next level, and I think this guy has what it takes. We are looking for ambitious and open-minded developers to participate in this chess revolution. Please respond to this comment, or e-mail me at email@example.com if you are interested. With enough fire under us, I think we can bring Magnus on board too!

<comment><USER9> I think you might have dropped a 'd' from your email address, eh?

<comment><USER10> No no, Stan is a big proponent of chess! He even created an organization about how pro-chess he is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> nevi-me I was disappointed in Carlsen's 12th game draw. He might have etched something out of the game, as computers were clearly saying he had some slight advantage. After seeing the first games from today, I eased down on my disappointment.

Today's first few games changed my mind. Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; time pressure. Caruana seemed to battle with time a lot, I observed a few instances where he'd spend a lot of time on "forced" moves, perhaps an element of self-doubt against his counterpart.

It's been an interesting time watching the games, but maybe it's time the classical format is spiced up with something else inbetween. You can't beat a record 12/12 draws, so I hope that doesn't become the norm, as we might as well be watching a blitz championship in the end.

<comment><USER11> > Carlsen remains the better player, because he does better where it matters; > time pressure.

I disagree. Carlsen is the better player under time pressure, but they appear evenly matched in what I'd consider "actual" chess. One of the things I love about the game is that it's a slow, pensive game.

<comment><USER12> Yes, as a non chess player I think of the game as two people each taking about 15 minutes per move. Blitz chess isn't what the cultural concept of "chess" is.

<comment><USER13> > Yes, as a non chess player I think of the game as two people each taking > about 15 minutes per move.

Not even classical time controls play that way -- 15 minutes per move would rapidly lose you the match. Prepared openings come quite quickly, obviously, but most moves even beyond that are played within a very few minutes of each other, with time being saved to spend on a "deep-think" of 15-30 minutes on only one or two key moves.

Which makes sense. Classical time controls in this tournament were, counting the per move increments, 120 minutes per player for the first 40 moves. That means you need to average a move every 3 minutes over your first 40 (and in reality, they spend less than that most games, preferring to maintain a healthy cushion).

Rapid (not Blitz, they did not play any Blitz games) only drops that down to 45 seconds per move over the first 40. Since they tend to live closer to the margin in Rapid anyways vs Classical, this is even less of a drop than it might appear.

It's unquestionably less time to think, but not nearly as much as you're suggesting.

<comment><USER12> I know, I'm not talking about real chess, but the Hollywood concept of chess. I also realize that Hollywood chess has the player representing Amerifreedom(TM) squared against a thickly accented Slav who kicks his dog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Strength in faster time controls strongly fits overall strength.

Caruana knew he was the underdog in Tie-breaks, he had 12 chances to avoid that and he was unable to.

Carlsen could have pressed in game 12 but he knew he was much stronger in faster controls, why risk anything?

Using computer evals through the match, I felt that Carlsen was slightly stronger, and their head to head record suggests as much.

<comment><USER15> The other way of looking at this is that twice in a row Carlsen has been unable to defend the title in classical controls and has relied on rapid time controls to win. In both cases, it's unclear if Carlsen could have retained the title had more classical games been played.

<comment><USER16> Does that say more about Carlsen or the modern classical game?

Classical these days is heavily reliant on technology for preparation. The world championship match gives both players a huge amount of time to research strong lines using an engine. When players finally do get out of prep, they have plenty of time on the clock to make a draw if they're not in a winning position. In shorter time controls it becomes a lot more difficult to avoid mistakes out of book. Then it becomes more about vision and calculation and less about preparation.

<comment><USER17> Could you explain what this prep entails? I understand that athletes or gamers will watch opponents' past plays to see how they should adapt, but I'm having trouble translating this to chess.

<comment><USER14> They have a team helping them prepare called seconds, they also keep aware of opening updates by following games around the world. They have large opening databases, and will use computers to find new moves (originally just a team of GMs) known as "novelties" (a surprise). The novelties take the opponent "out of book" or the prep (preparation) he has developed. This means the opponent will have to use more time, and find his way out of a tricky situation you are more familiar with, through computer analysis.

Often old sidelines will come back into fashion in order to avoid prep, or to lead someone into unfamiliar territory.

If you watch on a video feed, announcers will sometimes say "this position was played in city (x) in year (n) between player(1) and player(2)" this is to show that there are few games left in the database, we are entering deep prep.

Hope I helped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd wager 20% of Norway or more has been actively following these games. Everyone has been talking about it, the last few weeks the lunch at work has been mostly discussing the game the night before. All over the media. Biggest tv channel (NRK) showed the 15 games live, same for the biggest news page (VG) .

And this is nothing new, ever since the first time Carlsen was in a WC match Norway has been obsessed with chess. Some joke it's because we're so fond of slow-tv here. Both NRK and VG has made it like a panel/talk-show with a mix of chess experts and entertainers. The format works well.

<comment><USER19> I expected it to be the same in America, unfortunately this was not the case. I don't know what it is but nobody in my social circles seemed to even know that this was going on.

<comment><USER20> Wow, that's shocking. How could you expect it to be that way in America? Have you looked around at actual Americans and what they watch??

<comment><USER19> Just sort of baseless optimism on my part I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> From yesterday, before this outcome: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18545508](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18545508)

</comment><comment><USER22> It's funny how both of their last names start with "Car". On chessgames.com there's a massive dropdown of famous players in the search, and those are the only two whose names start with "Car". Chess.com did a contest on it, where they asked what type of car each of them would be.

I was rooting for Caruana but I'm not at all annoyed that Carlsen won. I really like how each of them rose to greatness with the different styles of playing chess they have.

<comment><USER23> Echoing the epic Kasparov v Karpov rivalry from 30 years ago perhaps. Pity that 's' and 'r' in the third letter had an off by one error in that case though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Shoutout to ChessExplained: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd9RHivv7ryAQSS7Q8p1zgA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd9RHivv7ryAQSS7Q8p1zgA)

ChessExplained is high rated German IM working towards becoming a GM and has tons (literally many thousands of videos) of great content, including self- commentated blitz, top games, openings, etc.

<comment><USER25> Just to throw it out there in case people are looking for good chess commentators, my favorite is agadmator: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL5YbN5WLFD8dLIegT5QAbA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL5YbN5WLFD8dLIegT5QAbA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> For anyone looking for a simpler recap of the event, there's been a 4-part series running at Deadspin that has been an awesome read for me. The last part covering the last 4 matches is here [https://deadspin.com/armageddon-looms- over-the-world-chess-c...](https://deadspin.com/armageddon-looms-over-the- world-chess-championship-afte-1830671246) and there are links to earlier parts in the article. I'm sure there will be a final part covering this victory as well.

<comment><USER27> I've been skipping through Deadspin in my RSS feed for years now, but I was really pleasantly surprised at how readable and in depth the chess articles were when they popped up (speaking as someone who hasn't played a competitive game of chess in 25+ years). It definitely hit the sweet spot for me in terms of being both understandable and enlightening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'd like to offer a few thoughts on this match as a former internationally competitive player/US Cadet U16 champion, current ~2400 bullet chess addict, and someone who has played bughouse with Fabiano as my partner at the Sinquefield Cup in 2017.

First, hats off to both players for a hard fought match. To Magnus for successfully defending his title, and to Fabiano for pushing Magnus right to the brink. This was an exciting matchup that was good for chess, especially American chess thanks to Fabi.

I give Magnus enormous respect for his classy remark in the closing ceremony, when he stated that Fabiano has as much right to claim the throne of classical chess as he does. This is 100% true given their drawn match, be didn't have to say it, but the fact that he offered that recognition to Fabiano is such a gentleman's move. It's enough to make me forget the disappointment I felt due to his draw offer in game 12. Magnus not only is the champ, he deserves to be the champ.

Fabiano talked about taking lessons from this experience. I hope his big takeaway is to begin incorporating online blitz and bullet into his training routine. From playing bughouse with him, I know that he is very unsure of himself when it comes to these faster time controls. I don't blame him for this. Most likely it is a result of his coach(es) instructing him not to "waste his time" or "ruin his chess" with blitz and bullet.

The truth is, blitz chess is not only insanely fun but extremely good training to develop intuition for slow chess. In case anyone has doubts about whether it is valuable, we just saw a world championship title awarded based on rapid.

tl;dr: Play more bullet and blitz! It's good for you.

 __* Shameless plug: I have been developing an online interface to help people become insanely good at bullet and blitz in a short amount of time. Essentially I reverse engineered the process of how I became a chess prodigy and prototyped a web interface to do it faster and at scale. I currently have an almost-MVP integrated with LiChess API and I'm looking for both beta testers and full stack devs (web and mobile) to help me launch this thing. With a little luck we will have Fabi, Magnus, Hikaru and others testing this in a month or two. I could really use some help on the dev side so anyone interested, please leave a comment! Can offer some combination of equity /cash/world-class private chess instruction to the right person or people :-)

<comment><USER28> > The truth is, blitz chess is not only insanely fun but extremely good > training to develop intuition for slow chess.

I find that actually quite controversial - correlation does not imply causation. The general sentiment within the community is that the causation works from the other side i.e being good at slow leads to being good at blitz.

Here are some quotes you might find interesting:

"Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapidplay in favour of serious chess." – Vladimir Kramnik

"He who analyses blitz is stupid." – Rashid Nezhmetdinov

"Blitz chess kills your ideas." – Bobby Fischer

"To be honest, I consider [bullet chess] a bit moronic, and therefore I never play it." – Vladimir Kramnik

"I play way too much blitz chess. It rots the brain just as surely as alcohol." – Nigel Short

"Blitz is simply a waste of time." – Vladimir Malakhov

<comment><USER3> I will refute your list of quotes by (again) pointing to the results of the world championships, just concluded.

The world crown was lost because Fabiano cracked under time pressure and lost a position in Game 1 of tiebreaks that he easily could have drawn in classical chess.

Skill in blitz chess does translate to classical, people.

It's not just about developing intuition. It's training your mind to see clearly under non-optimal situations, like when you are exhausted or, say, drunk. Not that you would ever play a serious game of chess while drunk, but still.

Being good at slow 100% does NOT lead to being good at blitz. I mean, yes, a grandmaster will beat a noob at blitz, but that's obvious.

I know what I'm talking about. I am a lowly national master who "punches above my weight" by regularly beating strong IMs and GMs at blitz and bullet.

@whatismindgam3 on LiChess, feel free to add me there or challenge me if you want to put my theories to the test.

<comment><USER29> I know nothing about chess, but part of your argument in both this post and the one before seems to be "I'm right because my ranking is higher than average". That's a bad way to convince people in general (it relies on appeal to authority, a type of logical fallacy), but since you're insistent on using it, the people quoted above are much stronger authorities and appear to hold the opposite view.

<comment><USER3> Is there a reason why you're not calling out the parent comment on appeal to authority? Because that was the thrust of his entire argument.

It's not just me who feels that way about blitz though. Look at guys like Hikaru Nakamura or Daniel Naroditsky. For every grandmaster who thinks blitz is useless, I can find one who thinks the opposite.

Ultimately the only real way to test theories is to get in and try it on yourself. Would you like to learn how to improve your chess? Are you open to a new way of doing it accelerated by technology? If so, I might be able to help. If not, no worries. There are plenty of other coaches or software tools out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why don't start with Armageddon next time, to spice things up for the classic format games?

<comment><USER11> I've heard similar proposals for soccer games, start with penalty kicks as a tiebreaker. Now, whomever lost the tiebreaker will have to play extra hard as they know a draw will be a loss.

<comment><USER31> I think it's an awful idea, because it encourages the team that won the tie to play safely and defensively and aim for acdraw. That makes for a tedious game to watch.

<comment><USER24> Completely agree. Drawish behavior would likely _increase_ with this policy, not decrease. Because it's incredibly hard at this level to beat a player that's explicitly playing for a draw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Carlsen didn't play the games, he played the tournament, and won.

</comment><comment><USER33> Anyone know where one can find a vod of the entire match? All I can find are cut little bits with the most cut out.

<comment><USER34> The entire tiebreak, which was played today, is this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBvQ36SqgqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBvQ36SqgqM)

The entire match, played over the past weeks, is this playlist: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJlVjicymKI&list=PLAwlxGCJB4...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJlVjicymKI&list=PLAwlxGCJB4NdFt- UwnS8tATIRJvXhcZxU)

<comment><USER33> Thanks, but I was looking for a video of them actually playing, not just people reviewing the moves.

<comment><USER35> FIDE actually owns the rights to the content. As far as I know there is no way other than to pay $20 for the video on the their main website. [https://worldchess.com](https://worldchess.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If only Othello had a community of a similar size to Chess'. At least there are good video live feeds from the world championship now for a couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER37> The strategy of Fabiano was better, but the tactics of Carlsen was the real reason for his victory.

<comment><USER2> Can you elaborate?

I would say it was Carlsen's overall strategy that got him a win. Taking it to the tie-break where he's a huge favourite. Seems like playing it safe was his strategy.

I can't evaluate who chose better tactics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> caruana shouldn't have agreed to draw 12th game.

</comment><comment><USER19> as an american i'm a bit disappointed that Caruana didn't win, that being said i think Carlsen is definitely a better player.

</comment><comment><USER39> And a computer would have beaten either of them.

</comment><comment><USER40> There are so many better links than a nytimes spam. But all we seem to get is nytimes spam lately.

How about link the a website dedicated to chess?

[https://www.chess.com/article/view/world-chess- championship-...](https://www.chess.com/article/view/world-chess- championship-2018-carlsen-caruana)

<comment><USER41> NYT spam?

I'll bite. What makes a (generally considered) reputable news outlet such as the NYT reporting on relatively major news spam?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Looked drawish.</comment>


Plastic Bottles in National Parks - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/13/how-big-water-is-trying-to-stop-the-national-park-service-from-cleaning-up-plastic-bottles/?tid=HP_politics?tid=HP_politics

<comment><USER2> Sigh. I just got back from Zion and had absolutely no problem with this policy... worst case - you buy one round of sodas drinks, then refill with water for the rest of the trip. No brainer.</comment>


Google to Join SOPA Protest - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/01/17/google-will-display-an-anti-sopa-message-on-its-homepage-tomorrow/ <comment> Tim-Boss This has been discussed in another post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3475587>

Personally, I think it's nice that they're taking some sort of action by putting a notice on their front page, but as people have said before, an awful lot (if not quite the majority of people) search straight from their browsers address/search bar, so will bypass this message completely! Why not put a small black bar/notice at the top of all search result pages? Surely that's the place that would be most affected by SOPA/PIPA anyway (censored search results)?</comment>


Git Informed When Your Site Is Hacked - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jerodsanto.net/2009/05/git-informed-when-your-site-is-hacked/ <comment><USER2> Also, it is good to use --git-dir to keep the .git directory outside webroot.</comment>


Best JavaScript commenting library - <AUTHOR>

At Viima, we're building a SaaS product where people should be able to comment things. We thought that since it's such a common need, there must be a good open source javascript library out there to do the job so that we wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.
We scoured the web but couldn't really find anything that would work for us so we decided to build it by ourselves and have now released the library as open source: http://viima.github.io/jquery-comments/
What do you think? Is this the best js commenting library out there or is there something even better available? <comment><USER2> All-in-all, great job and kudos for getting it done! It looks good, functions as it should with the flexibility to fit in any given product.

I like these projects because it helps break the often-overlooked centralization of civil conversation. However, it requires knowledge most of your target audience wouldn't have i.e. Database, Handling Spam, moderating etc.

As much as centralizing conversations get under my skin, the strength in these products is the ease-of-implementation.

You plan on rolling this out into a full product or is this more a project for the OS community to snowball?

<comment><USER3> Thank you for the feedback! This project was targeted to developers who are implementing commenting feature to their service but do not want to reinvent the wheel. This is something that we stumbled into in Viima Solutions and decided to solve this problem as we needed the library for both desktop and mobile versions of our software. Rolling a a full product is not our goal at this point as there are already existing solutions, Disqus for instance. That is something that we consider after getting more feedback about the library and figuring out if there's a need for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As the maintainer of the library I appreciate any kind of feedback

</comment><comment><USER4> Good jobs.

<comment><USER3> Thank you :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you write effectively? - <AUTHOR> Hey guys,
Just wondered how you churn out effective content?
I.e. If you have to write 10/20 pieces of content a week how do you do that? How do you 1. Come up with the topics. And 2. How do you actually sit down and write it and not get distracted?
thanks! <comment><USER2> It's been a few years since university, but:

Coming up with ideas is an exercise in creativity. So you need to exercise your creativity. Brainstorm everyday try to come up with 10 topics, they don't need to be good. Optionally, prune them down to what you think is good, and summarize why you think so. When it's easy come up with 10 do 15, 20, etc. Eventually you'll have the creativity muscles of Stephen King :).

Not getting distracted is a matter of discipline. Set aside time everyday to write. Start small and work up (a few hundred words then work your way up to 2000+). Beyond that have a basic idea what you want to write. Outlines help immensely.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey! My two cents

2 sources of ideas: \- Keyword Research (use SEM Rush, KeywordTool.io and AnswerThePublic; this is great for SEO)

\- Qualitative Research with customers/leads (just send an email asking them what are their goals, challenges, obstacles, etc; that is a great way to start writing topics that your clients care about)

How to write fast \- I try to copy the structure of similar articles and then fill in the blanks \- I just sit and write as fast as I can - and then review and edit to make it better. I think that separating this two steps is a great way to write more - first you write, then you judge your content.

Another tip \- I usually see more success writing fewer articles with higher quality (and word count!) - 2k+ words articles perform a lot better and can position you as a source of relevant and deep content

</comment><comment><USER4> Hard to answer the ideas question without more context, but I'd focus on ideas related to something you are passionate/knowledgeable/curious/have an opinion about. It's so much easier to write a piece of content when you actually care about the topic and have something add to what's already out there.

As for writing, I find it super helpful to have a formula that I can repeat for multiple articles... again, depends on the topics you're writing about. Give yourself timeframes - you'll probably fail to stay within the limits at first, but it can often help to keep you focused.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's hard to imagine having 10 important things to say to the world in a week.

If forced to do so, I would consider whatever is really important to my audience and write forthright, accurate information about those things.</comment>


Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let's Not Find Out - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/opinion/sunday/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-lets-not-find-out.html <comment><USER2> It's quite a leap to assume that our simulation would end just because we discovered it were a simulation. That presumes that something is monitoring the thoughts of individuals, or our species as a whole. It presumes that the simulation is so small in scale that only humans are being simulated (vs say an entire universe or some other large-scale experiment that involves more than human sentience). It presumes that any simulation-runner wouldn't be curious to see how the discovery altered our behavior.

I like the simulation hypothesis as a mind game, and I even have some semblence of religious attraction to the idea as an origin story that I could accept on faith, but I don't buy the "ancestor simulation" at all. Why ancestors? Who cares about simulating ancestors? If we're in a simulation, I'd find it easier to believe that we're being simulated by an intelligence vastly different from ourselves, and the complete evolutionary history is all part of the simulation. The idea that in a few thousand years humans will build some elaborate recreation of this narrow point in time and simulate their own history is about as absurd as The Matrix.

<comment><USER3> If its true, then I would generally believe the way you describe it.

But in our quaint little petri dish, all of our practical AI and Alife technology studies have been in the direction of making technology appear and act more human, or at least like what we know of in nature in our particular time and cultural frame. So it isn't such a big leap to think that if we are indeed part of a simulation, we're not all that different from our creators. We'd probably be damn near exactly like them once we've been "mastered" and well out of the beta version we must surely be in right now.

Think about adversarial networks. Who's to say that all the bad in the world isn't simply one of those? Maybe "they" were or still are trying to solve it, and we're the hoped method of discovering a solution?

We build off of what we know. So would "they."

*Note: I feel I should point out in case it isn't clear - I don't believe any of this. But if it were true and we are all part of a simulation, I think it would be a lot like how we handle exactly the same subject in technology right now.</comment></comment>


Code yourself a cliffhanger - <AUTHOR> http://snowedin.net/blog/2011/06/09/code-yourself-a-cliffhanger/

<comment><USER2> I've had this exact experience as well. Where everything turned out perfect, I coded, went home and went to sleep and woke up with a perfect solution and got going _right_ away.

More often than not though, this method has left me lying in bed awake for 2-3 hours of inability to sleep due to thinking about nothing but that problem.

If I could get over the sleeplessness somehow, I would do this every time!

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminded me of the story of One Thousand and One Nights ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights#Syn...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights#Synopsis)), where the new bride starts (but doesn't end) a story every night... ensuring the king doesn't execute her in the morning.

I think it's a great idea to do on purpose, but at the same time, it's making me _less_ worried about actually leaving that bug outstanding when I leave the office. That is to say, I will try and take advantage of the outstanding bug, rather than worry myself about it....

</comment><comment><USER4> In the XP glory days we used to go home leaving one failing test in the workspace so we knew where to start in the morning.

</comment><comment><USER5> Didn't Hemingway or some other author do something like this? I really like the idea- it works.

<comment><USER6> "The best way is always to stop when you are going good and when you know what will happen next. If you do that every day … you will never be stuck. Always stop while you are going good and don't think about it or worry about it until you start to write the next day. That way your subconscious will work on it all the time. But if you think about it consciously or worry about it you will kill it and your brain will be tired before you start." --Hemingway</comment></comment>


Gingr uses open-sourced Staffjoy code and gains fast traction - <AUTHOR> https://www.moonlightwork.com/blog/gingr-uses-open-sourced-staffjoy-software <comment><USER2> Hey, I'm Lee the founder of Gingr. Happy to answer any questions!

Special shout out to Philip at Moonlight. He's a great guy with a great business.</comment>


20 Things Developers Should Stop Saying - <AUTHOR> http://blog.aha.io/index.php/20-things-developers-should-stop-saying/

<comment><USER2> Honestly can't tell if trolling or serious. Good job if it's intentional trolling.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I always take any kind words I can get on HN. What do you mean by trolling? It's meant to be good-humored, but there are definitely some crazy annoying "sayings" on the list.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure who is doing the advising (your site seems to suggest, it's coming from a PM) but if it's indeed meant to be serious, then the whole tone is just... wrong. Starting with the title. You know how you can make certain jokes about your own ethnicity that just sound mean coming from a different ethnicity? It's the same when someone who is not doing the actual coding starts a list with "Stop saying these things..." to people who are actually building stuff.</comment></comment></comment>


Silence: A fork of Signal with only SMS/MMS encryption - <AUTHOR> https://silence.im <comment><USER2> It sounds like this is using SMS/MMS as the transport for the encrypted messages rather than TCP/IP. Since this is a fork or single "with only" that feature, does Signal itself already have it?

<comment><AUTHOR> It used to but then it dropped using SMS/MMS in favor to its custom protocol. That's when Silence was born.</comment></comment>


How to get a job after you've been rejected - <AUTHOR> http://www.karenx.com/blog/how-to-get-a-job-after-youve-been-rejected/ <comment><USER3> I'm going to state an uncomfortable truth. As somebody who has seen more than a few horrible interview failures - how about you put in a 100 hours of work _before_ you come to the interview?

Not for the company, but for yourself. And not doing fancy resumes with songs and pictures, but learning the basics of what you're actually doing? Because I'm fairly certain that most interview rejections are due to the fact that your qualifications are insufficient, not because your resume wasn't fun enough.

<comment><USER4> I see far more failure by way of deeming oneself unqualified and not applying than I do by way of train wreck interviews.

For me, job applications are like college applications - the best attitude is not to get my heart committed to anything outside my control, and not to take anything as a statement about who I am, and always will be, but rather on what, at a particular point in time, I can offer a particular person. I've had my ass handed to me in an interview before - It was a great experience - <USER2> learned what I needed to get better at to get the type of position I wanted, and through applications, failures, and learning, I eventually found a great position.

<comment><USER5> The way most job descriptions are - listing 5 languages with at least 3 years experience, its not a surprise that people deem themselves unqualified.

(As a side note I get to hire someone after Christmas,and have no idea how to word the ad. It will be all round work, with a fair bit of Python / Django, but I feel that these are fairly niche and will limit my choices if I ask for these specifically.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _So I put in my 100 hours. I made a custom resume that I illustrated with little Evernote-style animals. I got out my guitar and sang a song about why I wanted to work there. I designed a custom iPhone app for them._

Eww. Talk about trying way too hard.

<comment><USER7> Seriously? It's not trying too hard at all.

If there's a job you really want and you're really passionate about getting it no matter what, you should do anything in your power to try to get it. If you fail, you can at least say that you tried as hard as you could and it just didn't work out.

<comment><USER6> _If there 's a job you really want.. you should do anything in your power to try to get it._

No really, you shouldn't. For the sake of your long-term self-esteem & professional stature, what you should be looking for is a _2-way street._

Which is not to say you should apply for companies that are hard to get into, or for which get tons of applicants that you'll have to stand out against -- of course you should. And of course you should do your homework -- look into their business plan, the profiles of people they've hired (and who are likely to interview you), etc.

But you shouldn't _ever_ have to feel that you have to bend over backwards to get their attention. The basic point is that ultimately what you're after is a relationship where they need you as much _if not more_ than you need them.

And to get to that point, you have to head off any inkling in their mind that you're "chasing after them." Not that you should be doing the opposite (i.e. playing hard to get). But one way or another, you need to enter into the courting process with a rock-solid sense of self-assurance that -- whatever your deltas (+/-) against their ideal profile/skillset -- you're bringing something _very_ valuable to the table, namely, _yourself_. And that it should be _obvious_ to them that stand out against the pack, and -- while you may not end up being their first or final pick -- you clearly deserve front-line consideration. Without having to jump up and down, wave your arms, or make mixtapes for them, etc.

Analogies to dating being of course more than appropriate here.

<comment><USER8> There is nothing wrong with working hard to get their attention. It isn't a 2-way street until you've already proven yourself, that's when the relationship become symbiotic.

The dating analogies don't apply.

<comment><USER6> The point is that as with dating, there's a penalty (in some cases fatal) that comes with trying too hard -- you just come off as cloying and desperate. The OP clearly exceeded that threshold, by leaps and bounds.

<comment><USER9> Assuming you put a decent effort into the process prior to applying:

The point is, at this point you've already been told no. The worst case scenario is that you're told "Still no."

Depending on what it is you do to impress them, that can be used in other scenarios. You make some marketing plan or a brochure or redo a website? Stick it in your back pocket and save it again for later.

So you look desperate? So what? Either they say no, in which case apart from the extra work you've done, you're no further behind, or they say yes and think you're desperate, but you have the job.

<comment><USER10> How someone conducts themselves in response to rejection can affect future opportunities.

It isn't uncommon to be reject a candidate for one job, but approach them about a different job that better fits their skillset. This can happen even year or two down the road if that candidate left a good impression with a senior person who hires people regularly.

Worst case scenario is that not only are you rejected for that job, but are considered not hirable for other positions in the future. Trying to prove someone wrong after they have rejected you for a position indicates that you do not respect their decision, and feel entitled to reconsideration after they already made their choice clear. It's disrespectful.

Keep your dignity, and maybe that job rejection turns into a valuable opportunity down the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> WTF? But she never got a job after being rejected! She managed to get a failed college application reversed with her song and dance act, and that's it. When she tries that on a real job, it fails, and she goes on and rationalises that as being for the best. Huh?

This post has no point at all. And as someone who does his fair share of hiring, it is terrible advice anyway. If you really, really want another chance, just ask. I'll usually give someone a second shot if they seem to really want it, and give them an opportunity to explain why I was wrong the first time.

<comment><USER12> Very true. Of the many people who I interviewed and who ended up without an offer, not one has asked for a second shot, which would likely have been granted. It's unfortunate, because not every winning candidate wins by a landslide.

<comment><USER13> Very interesting. I once felt an interview starting to go poorly in the final stage and tried something similarly unexpected. I asked, " Honestly, what reservations do you have about hiring me." The interviewer answered, and I rebutted the three concerns. I started the next week, and it was a disaster. Then I decided to become a programmer, it was for the best.

Aren't anecdotes fun?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Job searching must be a nightmare if every application requires 100 hours of effort.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lots of people have spent more than 100 hours on their job search, spread across hundreds of companies. The idea is - what if you focused on the ones you really want, and put more effort into those?

<comment><USER15> I'd wager this is ~90% of the problem with the modern day employment market. Monster et al made it too easy to apply for a job. Now every position gets 1000 applicants and every applicant applies for 100 jobs. The applicant thinks the more they apply, the better their chances. The employer thinks there is a cookie cutter, definition employee out there that will fit 110%, be overqualified, and willing to work for less because the applicant won't get any of the other 100 jobs they shotgunned. The employer passes on applicant after applicant and waits until they find the 10x employee. The applicants move on to their next 100 cover letters.

<comment><USER16> Monster and other job listing sites are mostly just recruitment agency spam trying to get someone to bite. Well at least in the IT industry anyway.

Actually that's probably the symptom of what you're describing, companies no longer manage recruitment internally anymore, instead throwing the responsibility to the hyenas snapping below and hoping they can buffer out most of the shit

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think that the over all sentiment of this post is correct - hard work can pay off, and sometimes not in how you originally expected.

I also recently applied to a company, Blizzard Entertainment in Austin, that I have wanted to work for since 1999. In 1999 I didn't program, but playing their games got me into programming (through reverse engineering the games) and I have wanted to work there ever since. I applied for internships through the years, and then after school I started applying for full time positions. I never once even got a response, other than the automated rejection emails that come 2-3 months later. A few months ago they actually called me though, and I had the opportunity to go through the interview process for a .NET position. I sailed through the technical phone interview and was given a take home project to work on, for a week. It had some requirements that involved some design patterns that I'd never used before, but I easily put in 60+ hours on the project after getting home from my current job. After seeing that submission though, they decided to not continue with the interview. It's hard being rejected by a company that you've dreamed of working for for so long, especially when the rejection was after they looking at my code. As a coder, that code is all I am evaluated by during that phase of the project, so it's rough. I couldn't let it end there though. I researched the design patterns requested and completely re-wrote the project. In retrospect, my 2nd attempt was much better than my first. I don't know if the developers I spoke with, from Austin, saw my 2nd attempt or not, because I was going through a recruiter of theirs from CA. The recruiter basically just cut off all communication, and I got no feedback as to what I could have improved on.

But, I didn't stop there! That was basically 2 rejections. I decided to go around the recruiter and drafted up an email to the developers here in Austin - all I asked for was feedback on my code so that I could improve and apply in the future. I didn't have any of their emails, but I had their names. I sent the email to various combinations of their name and magically one went through. The guy responded literally 10 minutes later. He seemed open to helping but was busy (this was happening during thanksgiving and blizzcon, so it was definitely busy for them). We emailed back and forth several times but each time he kept forgetting to respond, so I just let it go. I didn't want to come off as pushy or annoying and ruin any future chances at the job.

No real moral to this, other than I kept trying and ended up with a real developer's email here in Austin. Maybe next time around he'll remember me.

<comment><USER18> Skywing,

Thank you very much for sharing your experience and hard work for getting job in your dream company. I can understand the situation and moral after 2 rejection but i really appreciate your effort for working hard to achieve your dream.

You really put great example for other readers here looking for job and got rejection. We should always think positive and work on our weaknesses to get our dream job.

Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> You can tell it's a good job market because being rejected for a job nowadays wouldn't feel like a big deal in the slightest.

It would simply be onto the next one and you'll probably have an offer for something equally good or better within the week!

</comment><comment><USER20> Getting rejected from Palantir in late August was probably the best thing that could've happened to me. It was the first company that I interviewed at for a full time roll and it made me realize I wasn't ready. I spent the next 8 weeks coding for three hours a day and preparing for interviews. Ended up landing a great job that I'd take over Palantir any day.

<comment><USER21> >I spent the next 8 weeks coding for three hours a day and preparing for interviews.

what were you doing the rest of the working day?

<comment><USER20> I'm still in college. I'd wake up at 6, eat and do some coding problems, go to class, come home, do homework, do phone interviews, code till midnight, and go to sleep.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It'd be nice to know what the author of the post got out of trying even harder (!!) and joining Exec that way. Are we talking nice experience, multiple promotions, million-dollar exit, or other stuff?

I, honestly, don't try hard at all for interviews. The only work I put in is in doing some quick research on the company and the people I will be meeting, but even that is not so important (because it's usually better to hear from them directly)

I have had some very good success on face-to-face interviews like that, and it makes things equal between applicant and company; if a person has put in hours of work in creating something specifically for that interview, is he desperate for a job? is he trying to make up for a lack of talent? I don't think it's such a positive thing as this article would lead one to believe.

</comment><comment><USER23> I used to believe a long time ago (when I was younger) that anything is possible -- so long as you work hard. But the reality is it's more complicated than that. Some people have pure talent; no matter how hard you work, you can never achieve their level of talent in a lifetime. Some people have access to the proper network effects, i.e. genetic lottery. It all comes down to analyzing your situation and making the best out of it. Who cares about some shitty programming job that's 9-5? That's overrated. Build something you're passionate about, that you love to show others. It can be something simple at first, but slowly you'll gain insight into what you really want to do.

<comment><USER24> I think anything is possible as long as you're open to anything. Putting your head down and plowing ahead can only get you so far in most circumstances. The key is to work hard while continuing to look around and recognize the diverse opportunities around you.

So many people get caught up on a single scenario as their end goal, rather than understanding that there are many possibilities that you don't even know about right now, that would bring you greater happiness than the single ideal that they hold so dear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ok, sorry, but 100 hours to apply to a single job is just silly. There are tons of factors that you could make you an unfit candidate for that position that you couldn't possibly know about, and even putting a solid year of work into a resume won't help you get around those problems.

"So I put in my 100 hours. I made a custom resume that I illustrated with little Evernote-style animals. I got out my guitar and sang a song about why I wanted to work there. I designed a custom iPhone app for them."

Perhaps they were a little creeped out by someone singing a song to them on YouTube without knowing them at all? This just gives me weird vibes... and furthermore demonstrates nothing of clear value to being a designer (presumably) at Evernote. Those 100 hours would have been better spent honing skills or learning a new one.

I think you should pump the brakes a little on your job application strategy. Most of the time, a well-crafted, personal email and solid resume is the best way to go. A bunch of the time not being hired is as simple as "they found another person first", "you were one of 100 resumes and they accidentally skipped yours", or "they were looking for a person who would be more adept as skill y whereas you're best at skill x". That's why you should concentrate on a couple companies you'd like to work at, and not be devastated if the most likely situation happens (not being picked).

</comment><comment><USER26> At a minimum, thanks for the reminder about keeping failure in perspective. It is so easy to fall into failure aversion mode and not even realize it can hold you back.

</comment><comment><USER27> This was a great read, especially as our startup gets closer to launch and we need to keep in mind both the value of rejection, and the philosophy of always trying as hard as we possibly can. The 100 hours specifically can be debated for job applications and etc., but the idea behind it is hard to argue against.

</comment><comment><USER28> I see you didn't get into YC. How did you apply this technique to that process? If you didn't, why not?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question. We thought about what we should do after YC.

Post rejection, we waited a few weeks until we had some pretty good traction stats, and then sent an email to PG asking they reconsider us. We got an email back saying they don't change their decisions because they wouldn't be able to scale that way.

In this case, we didn't think the best thing was to do flashy techniques, based on what we've heard about PG. Depending on where our startup is, we may apply again next batch. We're applying to other incubators right now too.

<comment><USER21> so what you're saying is your "technique" doesn't even work for you

<comment><AUTHOR> That's right, it doesn't always work. (See the second half of the article, "100 hours doesn't always work")

<comment><USER29> There's a subtlety -- in "100 hours does't always work" you describe how simply putting the time in isn't sufficient to get the outcome. You still tried, and you (unfortunately) failed. In the case of YC, it seems that you chose not to try (though you likely already spent 100 hours for the original interview process, right?).

I think you may want to write a blog post about _that_ : How do you choose which project to invest 100 units into? And, how do you measure the success of that decision both in the short- and long-terms?

For example, do you think the Evernote application had long-run benefits? Did it help you in getting a different job down the road? Those are the kind of stories I think would be interesting to connect to the give it 100 project.

Best of luck on the endeavor!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've got 2 stories which may or may not contradict this idea:

1) I interviewed a candidate for a junior position. He seemed qualified and came with a recommendation from someone I trust. But during the interview with one of the managers in our group, he indicated that something on his resume was not accurate. He didn't directly say that, and he tried to squirm around it by saying he really meant it in this way, etc. etc. The manager took this as a big red flag that this person was not trustworthy or at least not a good match for our group. He was later told he didn't get the position. At that point he started emailing me constantly asking what he could do to get in our good graces. I had to tell him that since I wasn't the hiring manager there was nothing I could do, and that he had really blown it because it basically looked like he was lying during his interview. Now every time there's an opening in our group he emails me looking to apply for the position. This has made me 10x less likely to consider him in the future. (Granted, he didn't do his "100 hours".) But being a pest is not going to get you anywhere. Just suck it up and move on. (I wish someone had taught me how to do that when I was younger. I often got the advice, but wasn't able to implement it, much to my detriment.)

2) At an earlier job, we had a candidate apply. I thought he was pretty good, but the boss was unimpressed. During the interview I asked him if he'd read some programming books that I had found useful. He hadn't heard of them. The boss rejected him and we hired someone else. A year later we had another position. He applied again, and this time he told me he had read the books and explained how he had put some of the ideas into practice. He didn't pester us for a job and he didn't act like a psycho or a douche. He just did the hard work of learning what he was missing. We hired him. Later I left that job and started my own company and hired him again. He was a good employee and good at what he did.

I can't imagine trying to work with the guy from #1 above on a daily basis after seeing him be so persistent and annoying. I would definitely not hire #1 even if he were the most qualified candidate because of how annoying his persistence was.

</comment><comment><USER31> > _By rejecting me at first, college admissions taught me the most valuable > lesson of my life. It doesn't matter if you're told no. Everything's > negotiable._

I've learned to appreciate this over the years. However, I think this is very much an _American thing_. I lived for 4 years in Europe and people are much more willing to bend the rules in America, whereas people in Europe tend to "follow the rules". And thus, the people that support the systems are less willing to bend. Any European natives agree?

<comment><USER32> As an Italian, I don't agree. But that's for Italy, we're corrupt and we always bend rules.

Currently living in The Netherlands and things are very different here. Also Belgians and Germans are very strict, from what I heard.

Europe in itself is far too broad. We may be very small land-wise but culturally-wise we can be very different between each other. Can't say for sure, really.

<comment><USER33> > As an Italian, I don't agree. But that's for Italy, we're corrupt and we > always bend rules.

Hah, that made me chuckle. I realize you're being serious, but it seems funny. (disclaimer: I'm Romanian, things are similar for us).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> How does this get on here?

Why is it acceptable to use HN as a platform for shameless self-promotion? And if it absolutely has to be why can't it at least be worthwhile?

HN's filter needs to be overhauled. Particularly any post from a site with the same name as the poster. Those are rarely good.</comment>


Epic Roundup of 2011 in Inbound Marketing and SEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.zazzlemedia.co.uk/search-engine-optimisation-advice/ The most complete round up of the year in SEO and inbound marketing - a timeline of events explained by the best blogs on the year! <comment><AUTHOR> Hope you like the piece guys. The idea is it serves as a bookmark for all the main events of the last 12 months!</comment>


Motion Estimation with Optical Flow - <AUTHOR> https://blog.nanonets.com/optical-flow/ <comment><USER2> I hit upon a similar idea back in about 2000... the key at the time was video encoding hardware that was designed to incorporate MPEG compression. Pulling motion vectors from the encoded stream could have given realtime optical flow way back then. Unfortunately I was nowhere good enough as a programmer to take advantage of it for real projects. A team at MIT had a paper about this that I was able to find.

Had a page about it on robots.net, but it seems to be down now

<comment><USER3> We're doing this with H.264 at work. Pretty useful since we need to generate the encoded stream anyway, so now we get motion estimation for free.

<comment><USER4> Awesome. Which encoder provides this? Can you pull it from cuvid?

<comment><USER5> NVidia has some example code for getting the motion vectors during video encoding

[https://github.com/NVIDIA/video-sdk- samples/blob/master/Samp...](https://github.com/NVIDIA/video-sdk- samples/blob/master/Samples/AppEncode/AppEncME/AppEncME.cpp)

<comment><USER4> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey,

Most real-time video processing systems/techniques only address relationships of objects within the same frame, disregarding time information. Optical flow accounts for this temporal relationship between frames. Advances in Optical Flow have changed the game in Object Tracking and Human Activity Recognition in videos.

This article explains the fundamentals and gives you the code to try it out for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've dabbled with optical flow for a hobby side project (using the Windows ShaderEffectClass of all things). I worked on the Kinect back in the day; while I was primarily audio, I had a fascination of applying DSPs to two- and three-dimensional temporal data.

I've always felt that it was a missed opportunity to tap into temporal information for entity recognition. I'm excited to see this take hold!

<comment><USER7> @Darkphibre, wonderful background! Yes, and optical flow + recent advancements in deep learning is also certainly something exciting to see flourish! Action recognition seems like a promising research area ([https://research.google.com/ava/](https://research.google.com/ava/) CVPR '18).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Back in 2008 there was an amazing demo of realtime dense optical flow on a GPU[0] but all the links are dead now. I've searched hard for another comparable implementation since then but had no luck.

Does anyone have a hint on what technique they might have used?

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssINeWRb58M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssINeWRb58M)

<comment><USER8> A lot of that group's publications are listed here, many involving optical flow: [http://web.archive.org/web/20161014025823/http://gpu4vision....](http://web.archive.org/web/20161014025823/http://gpu4vision.icg.tugraz.at/index.php?content=Cat_0)

Maybe this one from 2007: [https://www- pequan.lip6.fr/~bereziat/cours/master/vision/pap...](https://www- pequan.lip6.fr/~bereziat/cours/master/vision/papers/zach07.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Oh amazing find Icrs, thank you! :)

<comment><USER9> Thomas Brox's lab had a ton of these around 2008-2012 as well, such as [0]. I believe Brox had some freely available early CUDA program to calculate optical flow that was sort of SOTA for many years.

[0]: [https://lmb.informatik.uni- freiburg.de/Publications/2010/Bro...](https://lmb.informatik.uni- freiburg.de/Publications/2010/Bro10e/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (Hierarchical) Optical flow is slow and prone to the need to manually adjust its constants for each scene (not really universal). Did you think about using 3D convolutions & attention with Deep Learning instead?

<comment><USER7> Hi @bitL, I'm the author of the article. Yes, I think deep learning is a promising solution that replaces the need for manual fine-tuning and is certainly driving momentum in optical flow research. Something you may want to look into is sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) learning ([https://google.github.io/seq2seq/](https://google.github.io/seq2seq/)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really neat article. I have always wondered if these techniques are used at all in higher fps interpolations which always seem... off.

<comment><USER12> Yes, they are. In fact, I think my Samsung TV from circa 2009 actually calls it "Motion Estimation". It makes everything look like it was filmed on a Sony Handycam from the 80s. I don't understand why anyone would want to turn it on.</comment></comment>


There's More to Life Than Being an Entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/hi-my-name-is-jon/theres-more-to-life-than-being-a-fucking-entrepreneur-332bce126731#.l2v9zyfhv <comment><AUTHOR> Probably a better title would be "It's okay to be an employee, too."</comment>