Artificial Flight and Other Myths - <AUTHOR> http://dresdencodak.com/2010/02/16/artificial-flight-and-other-myths-a-reasoned-examination-of-af-by-top-birds/ <comment><USER3> This is in a similar vein to an earlier essay by the same author: <http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/2181/>

In the aforelinked one, he skeptically critiques the idea of evolution into hominids from the perspective of a primate. It's an enjoyable read, if not exactly the soundest case for a Kurzweilian singularity.

</comment><comment><USER4> Amusing, but as a serious argument it critically fails in that "Strong AF" is measured by whether it fools a real bird into thinking it's a bird, and once you are "birdy" you can't be "more real than real", but in the real world everybody understands that passing a Turing Test is the _beginning_ of AI, not the end. The Turing Test is a relatively unambiguous measurement of how successful the AI is, and it will progress from there.

Yes, it's true that the Turing Test does force a bit of possibly-difficult humanity onto the resulting AI, but all that probably boils down to is some constant factor improvement on human intelligence (on some hypothetical measure where we can quantify intelligence along a single dimension), with the resulting slightly-superhuman-AI just "faking" being human. That would still win, and I have a hard time imagining some sort of weird result where we have radically superhuman AIs that just can't seem to convincingly fake being human.

<comment><USER5> _I have a hard time imagining some sort of weird result where we have radically superhuman AIs that just can't seem to convincingly fake being human._

I have a hard time imagining it too, but I see no good reason why that _couldn't_ happen (which was the whole point of the article I think - <USER2> current technology can _easily_ make many different things that can fly, but we are still incapable of making something that really flies like a bird).

<comment><USER6> _which was the whole point of the article I think - our current technology can easily make many different things that can fly, but we are still incapable of making something that really flies like a bird_

I read it differently. The aim is to make something that can fly. But we, from our position as birds, don't accept flying as anything other than bird-like flying - with wings and feathers.

Leaving the analogy, I think the article is saying that humans generally don't accept anything as artificial intelligence unless it exactly mimics a human, or is indistinguishable from a human. Thus the attempts to work out exactly how the brain (or wing) works and to replicate it.

In reality, AI research has progressed considerably - visual recognition, autonomous navigation, question answering etc. But these are only 'gliding', and are only leading towards 'other flight-like phenomena' such as bat and insect flight. We don't accept them as parts of an artificial intelligence because we think (rightly or wrongly) that there is something more to intelligence than just a set of special algorithms and feed back loops.

<comment><USER7> I thought it was a critique of people focusing on trying to create AI by modeling human intelligence. But I think it's a dumb article because I am reasonably sure that Avian aerodynamics undoubtedly inspired early aeronautics.

If his criticism is just of the Turing Test instead, then I think he's a simpering ninny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _We may build a functioning, flapping wing, but what if the essence of flight is deeper, hidden within the cells or elsewhere?_

Oh joy. One of these articles. And yes, I do think that sentence is indicative of the whole article, though it's more instantly-recognizable-as-stupid than most of it. The rest of the article takes a few seconds more.

Well, I guess we won't be "really" flying any time soon. I like my enhanced- gliding just fine, thanks.

<comment><USER9> _Strong A.F., as it is defined by researchers, is any artificial flier that is capable of passing the Tern Test (developed by A.F. pioneer Alan Tern), which involves convincing an average bird that the artificial flier is in fact a flying bird._

The same goes for this one... Lovely :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mildy apropos, I was talking to an aeronautical engineer this weekend, who dropped the phrase "You can make anything fly if you can make it go 200mph."

<comment><USER11> Evidently the speed constraint on very very fast cars doesn't come from making them go faster, it comes from making them _not take off into flight_.

<comment><USER12> Peter Dumbreck in the Mercedes, Le Mans, 1999

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow3rxq7U1mA> at about 33 secs.

Here's another: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3NQeDzedk>

Yes, when cars go fast enough, keeping them on the ground is one of the challenges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Silly article. Everyone knows you can't have strong AF without using _tern_ ary computers.

<comment><USER8> Oh wow, I just got that...

The pain... xD

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does this mock _Computer Power and Human Reason_?

</comment><comment><USER15> Ah, Dresden Codak. I dropped him from my RSS a long time ago. Nice to catch up with his latest work. He always makes me think.

</comment><comment><USER16> Not even an Airbus A380 would pass the Tern Test. So I guess we don't have Strong A.F. after all …

<comment><USER17> Can you imagine what would it be to have an A380 flapping its wings?

<comment><USER12> These results are old because they're from the time I had a tour through the aeronautical research laboratories in Melbourne, Australia. However,

The wings of a boeing 727 flex about 8 inches in each direction in normal flight. In tests to destruction they were flexed repeatedly to nearly 8 feet in each direction before they showed any visible signs of distress, finally failing after 13 hours constant flexing at 8'4" in each direction.

I'm not suggesting I wouldn't be terrified in a major storm, but I felt a lot safer in flight after that. Aircraft wings are amazingly flexible and robust.

<comment><USER17> I know planes have flexible wings, but there is a good reason nature's largest flying critter is no bigger than a toy plane.

An ornithopter the size of an A380 would be... interesting.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Simple Blogging Platform - <AUTHOR> https://www.quickpublisher.online <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good 'Show HN'. Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I had no idea about this. I'll try this out to reach more users. Thank you!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hacker News Rankings - <AUTHOR> https://www.hakaran.com/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty cool. Are you using the public BigQuery instance to query the data?

I did something like this a while back using Redshift but it was expensive to host.

Using the public BigQuery instance would be a cool way to do it for free.</comment>


Keeping the Pirates at Bay – Copy and Crack Protection (2001) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131439/keeping_the_pirates_at_bay.php <comment><USER2> The biggest takeaway of this article is that effective security comes from proper threat modeling and analyzing the cost dynamics.

Most media companies in that era attempted to build an "uncrackable" system which always got cracked in short order because the mechanism depended on one tactic. By acknowledging that all protection schemes eventually get figured out and acknowledging the adversary's strengths and weaknesses, the author could then employ defense-in-depth techniques to maximize the cost of cracking the system.

Remember that every adversary has a budget.

<comment><USER3> > the author could then employ defense-in-depth techniques to maximize the > cost of cracking the system.

Can you provide more details on this statement? I understand defense-in-depth and the different methodologies for cracking software but your statement doesn't make sense when applied as a whole. Do you have any examples?

<comment><USER2> The real meat of the defense-in-depth analysis is on page three of the article. Spyro had a two-layer defense-in-depth scheme: one layer that looked like a normal PSX cracking problem, and another that would look fine for a while and then mess up the game over time, which forced the crackers to make a complete play-through (and probably multiple failed play-throughs) to verify that their cracks worked. This served to make the cracker's feedback loops as long as possible. The author also acknowledges that it was impractical to add more layers of protection due to computational/IO/space costs, but that it would have offered more security, such as having multiple copies of the game's executable code on disc that are separately encrypted and randomly used, using custom compression algorithms, etc.

At its philosophical core, defense-in-depth is the idea of delaying an attacker rather than preventing an attack. In a military or IT situation this delay usually lets the defender detect the attack and counterattack/prosecute. In the cracking world, the delay IS the counterattack, since release groups measure their performance based on release quickness and the company (theoretically) gains revenue from the game not being on Kazaa during that critical sales season.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for the response. I never really thought about defense-in-depth from the angle of slowing an attacker down. I have always thought about it from a detection standpoint. You make a good point. Cheers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've often heard people say that piracy isn't harmful, but looking at what it does to video game developers, I'm not sure it always isn't. Day 1 cracks are obviously a serious concern if developers like this one would go to so much effort to prevent them. And I remember Nintendo saying piracy had hurt DS software sales in Europe (understandably: instead of buying several full titles, people would buy a cheap "R4" or similar flash cart and play hundreds of games for free - I recall having friends who did this).

<comment><USER5> It's a bit puzzling to hear this coming from Nintendo since it's pretty clear that piracy hurts the Windows platform infinitely more than the console industry.

Very, very few console owners run unlocked consoles, so they don't even have the option of running cracked games.

On the other hand, every PC owner can run cracked copies, and it only takes a few minutes of reading for even the most non tech savvy Windows user to find out about bittorrent and how to procure cracked games.

<comment><USER6> > It's a bit puzzling to hear this coming from Nintendo

Those R4 carts were all over the place. I was living in Japan at the time and everyone and their mother had one. There is no doubt it cost them a lot of money.

<comment><USER7> Every single person I knew who had a PSP ran only pirated games. My cousin had a single legit copy and even then he would run a downloadad ISO because it was faster to load than the UMD. Apparently PSP sold really really well, but no games matched those sales, which suggests that PSP piracy was fairly widespread too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8807135](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8807135)

</comment><comment><USER9> It would be interesting to see the difference in sales in the 3rd month between US and Europe, since the European version took one more month to crack.

</comment><comment><USER10> Earthbound / Mother 2 for the SNES also did this, way before Spyro.

<comment><USER11> Among other things, you'd get to the end boss and then everything would break.

[http://earthboundcentral.com/2011/05/earthbounds-copy- protec...](http://earthboundcentral.com/2011/05/earthbounds-copy-protection/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fascinating.</comment>


RubyMotion Success Story: Cabify - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rubymotion.com/post/30514580062/rubymotion-success-story-cabify

<comment><USER2> Congrats to Mark on his success! For those who haven't had a chance to follow along, Mark has been a constant presence in the community and I'm glad to see his drive and willingness to take the initiative has paid off. His story is also a perfect example of why it is so important to get out, give talks, and participate in your local development communities, even if "local" doesn't overlap with "Silicon Valley" or "NYC".

<comment><USER3> That's a very good point to focus on. Thank you! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just curious - are developers putting themselves at risk by revealing they're using RubyMotion? ie risk of being penalised in app store or possibly even banned if Apple's policy swung back to how it used to be.

I assume there's no way to tell an app is RubyMotion by inspecting the UI, though maybe it's possible to tell from the binary?

<comment><USER2> You would have to be rather talented and put in a non-trivial amount of effort to tell a RubyMotion app from any other iOS app. A while back there was a conversation in IRC where one person was trying to do just that and kept coming up short...

 _Edit_ : Also, "how it used to be" was a stupid, knee-jerk reaction to Adobe and caused significant consternation even within Apple (disclaimer: I was working at Apple at the time). Furthermore, considering that the single most recognizable "App Store" brand utilizes a non-trivial amount of Lua, there is essentially zero risk that things will go back to "how it used to be".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How does cabify differ from uber? I haven't used either...

<comment><USER6> I haven't used Über, but the idea is exactly the same and the apps are very much alike. I live in Madrid, which is one of the cities where Cabify operates. I've used their service a couple of times and I can only recommend it. Looks like a good place to work and Mark Villa Camp, the guy mentioned in the article is a well known name in the Spanish tech scene.

Is Cabify a copycat? Whatever, is a well executed idea and I wish they succeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I, for one, am not looking forward to an influx of Rails engineers redefining the iOS development culture in their image.

The lack of respect for knowledge gained over 20+ years of platform development is staggering, but not unexpected. They're rejecting everything from Interface Builder to the standard build tools, and adopting inferior web ideas wholesale -- such as attempting to style native UI with CSS.

While it may be par for the course, I'd had hoped that our section of the engineering field would be immune to influence from the Rails community.

<comment><USER8> Heh, yeah. Look at that company. A 20 years old dude comes with some hipster unproven technology and the boss jumps at it.

They are doomed to fail.

<comment><USER9> RubyMotion changed the way our entire agency operates: we haven't outsourced a single app in months. It's been the best thing to happen to us, hands down.

<comment><USER7> You could have also just learned how to write Objective-C. It'd be more fair to your clients.

<comment><USER9> How so? These responses are quite simply FUD.

<comment><USER7> For the same reason we don't use MonoTouch on client projects; it would creat a maintenance and hiring nightmare for our clients. You jumped on RubyMotion out of laziness or inability to learn something new.

<comment><USER9> I absolutely believe that the process of developing an app with RubyMotion is revolutionary in terms of mobile development. The flexibility of Ruby paired with the interoperability with Obj-C is nothing but a win.

<comment><USER7> Says the individual that had to farm out mobile development until you could use a language with which you were already familiar.

There's little I've seen in RubyMotion that provides a substantive improvement on ObjC, and a lot that is worse than ObjC.

<comment><USER9> It just depends on what you want to do. For example, if I wanted to develop a 3D shooter game do you think I would do it in Objective-C, C++, etc? No -- I'd use Unity or Stage3D and then compile to the target.

For 90% of the fairly-standard apps that we'll ever develop, the overhead and headaches and needless code-bloat that Objective-C brings to the project is only a reminder of the elegance of Ruby and the beauty of simplicity. (It's also a reminder that you'll no longer need to budget for XCode crashes every hour.)

<comment><USER10> elegance, simplicity, beauty.. do those words emanate from Ruby in waves or from your inability to give a technical description? what overhead and code- bloat are you talking about? you can read the LLVM code and the objc runtime from Apple and go into specifics if you like.

To write a 3D shooter you can use Objective-C specific features as much or as little as you want. For intensive performance code you can bypass the messaging system and write pure C, for the rest you can use Cocoa APIs. This is what you do in any language. Unless you want to argue that dynamic languages as a whole are not worth it.

If you are happy with RubyMotion go ahead, but don't preach bad mouthing a language you haven't even developed on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hmm, I have used Cabify and it's a horribly slow application. Now I know why.

<comment><USER3> As far as I'm concerned, Rubymotion shoudn't decrease the performance of an app...

<comment><USER11> Yup Rubymotion isn't interpreted, it's compiled file by file to LLVM bytecode, this negatively effects development speed but it means it runs (roughly) as fast as pure obj-c (or so they claim on the rubymotion site). We're using it at the moment to develop an app, it's great at keeping code DRY, debuggability on device kinda sucks atm though.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Reply to journalists automatically when they write/tweet about you - <AUTHOR> http://meansheep.com <comment><USER2> In pre-internet days this was called a "clipping service."

<comment><AUTHOR> What did clipping mean in that context?

<comment><USER2> cutting out of the publication with scissors. (Yes, I am old enough to remember "cut and paste." It wasn't completely manual: we had a special machine to apply the paste. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23560138](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23560138) )

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_monitoring_service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_monitoring_service) has nineteenth century examples of clipping services.</comment></comment></comment>


Fully open source Oracle dev framework - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zubairq/coils

<comment><USER2> "Coils lets you build web apps using Clojure and relational databases, with SQL directly in the UI code"

I don't do web dev, but "SQL directly in the UI code" looks very wrong to me !

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, just so you know, everytime you use facebook which uses react.js they have data access code in the UI as well.</comment></comment>


Post-pandemic rent control hurts renters - <AUTHOR> https://www.tinker.fyi/4-pandemic-rent-control/ <comment><USER2> All the things that the article mentions are true, but the conclusion that the author comes to is not. Yes, the landlords have all the incentives in the world to try other shenanigans other than a straight rent reduction, but it feels like everyone is so used to housing increasing forever that the thought of an actual market correction is so foreign. The incentive to lower rents is to get a renter to move into the unit.

The threshold of where they'll lose more holding the unit off market do to trying to squeeze last years rent price will be equalized quickly.

This isn't 10 year business leases. If a renter moves out and the rental market recovers they can go right back to their preferred number.

</comment><comment><USER3> Article says landlords have no incentive to lower rents, and then notes that rents are going down.

<comment><AUTHOR> Only 50% of SF rentals are rent-controlled</comment></comment>


World clock, when? - <AUTHOR> Are we going to terminate the absurd concept of time zones? I wonder why those feudal folks decided that it is important that at noon the sun must be above. <comment><USER2> We already have a "World Clock" \- you can adopt it too. Just always work by Zulu time.

So if someone asks you what time it is, give them the answer in Zulu time. When they look confused, explain.

Then you'll have to work out what time - Zulu time - you have your breakfast, and your lunch, and your evening meal. So suddenly you'll be having breakfast at, say, 12:00 Zulu. Does that help? _How_ does it help?

So I want to phone you - how do I know what time to call? Any time after breakfast? Cool - what time do you have breakfast?

So, are you instead going to synchronise your day to mine? I sure as heck aren't going to go to bed when the Sun is at its peak and get up a little after it has set. Would you do that?

This comes up every year or so on HN and I honestly just don't understand the mind-set of people who suggest it. I'd seriously like to know how you would address the above, and how you can see this possibly working.

</comment><comment><USER3> You could switch to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> ..Specially when people tends to travel more and more

<comment><USER4> A few years ago there were approximately one billion people who travelled abroad for at least one night (that's the last year I can find a number for). That's about 15% of the population of Earth. It's reasonable to say that _most_ people don't travel internationally, even if the amount has gone up by a few percent. We're a long way off abandoning timezones.</comment></comment>


No, You Don't Get to Have a Private Stock Market, Sorry - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/financial-adviser/2012/03/13/no-you-dont-get-to-have-a-private-stock-market-sorry/

<comment><USER2> this is an opinion piece related to this bloomberg article: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-12/sec-said-to-plan- ac...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-12/sec-said-to-plan-action-over- felix-sharespost-in-stock-inquiry.html)

I have never quite understood how these secondary markets work, is this article saying that they are going to shut down completely? Are there laws regulating selling your own shares of a non-public company, or is it just that a trading market cannot be setup for doing that?

</comment><comment><USER3> The next time you hear something bad about capitalism, keep this in mind: we haven't had capitalism in this country for over a century.

It's no one else's business where someone decides to invest, as long as there's no actual fraud by any party. When that line is crossed, that's where the government has a proper role.

To put it concretely: the government should be protecting us from wealth destroyers like Bernie Madoff. It has no business prosecuting wealth creators like Martha Stewart (remember also that it came close to doing the same thing Steve Jobs, with the backdating "scandal"). Going after heroes like Stewart and Jobs is downright immoral.

Furthermore, the fact that Madoff ran his scheme for as long as he did (decades) should tell you something about how practical an idea the SEC really is.

Edit: I just noticed the title for a second time now. "Get to have"? That is incredibly wrong and offensive way to phrase it. It should be "allowed to make." A stock market isn't a naturally occurring thing - it takes living, breathing, thinking human beings with the freedom to act to create a stock market. _That_ is what they're ultimately stopping.</comment>


Nick Denton has Huffington / HuffingtonPost Envy (Clearly) - <AUTHOR> http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2009/02/22/gawker-rolls-up-defamer-valleywag-chasing-huffington-post/

<comment><USER2> I am loving The DailyBeast more than Huffington these days</comment>


Ways to avoid using the word 'very' - <AUTHOR> http://writerswrite.co.za/45-ways-to-avoid-using-the-word-very <comment><USER2> Let me disagree.

Many words in the "rather say" column hinder clear communication.

* If a dictionary visit is required, you've failed the audience.

* If multiple interpretations are possible, you've failed yourself.

Ex:

\- Sagacious is out of favor since 1920 (google ngram).

\- Solemn vs 'very serious' (implies religious aspects where there were none)

\- Accomplished vs 'very capable (implies having attained something, not the potential to do so)

\- Unyielding vs 'very strong' (replacement rarely applies) etc etc

      Use of sagacious is not sagacious and a solemn problem indeed.
      This accomplished man, accomplished tiny.
      Behold, unyielding password encryption.

<comment><USER3> It's a bad idea to encrypt passwords, but that's beside the point.

> If a dictionary visit is required, you've failed the audience.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, we end up in a world where English ceases to be the language of Shakespeare and more like dogespeak. No one will be morose anymore, just very sad, and no one will know what it means to be awestruck.

Someone will always need a dictionary. That shouldn't make us afraid to show that we have a vocabulary spanning more than 500 words, or that we have an education at all. God forbid we encourage others to stop talking or writing like 16-year-olds on E! TV.

<comment><USER2> Ooopsie. Deleted the word 'intended'.

Write for your _intended_ audience and not people like you/your friends (or english professor). In our international/global economy the audience often extends to non-native English speakers. Simple words on e-commerce sites generate more international sales.

PS Morose is not "very sad" :-)

<comment><USER3> You missed both of my points:

No matter your intended audience, there is always somebody who will need a dictionary. It's not shameful to look up words, and it's easier than ever to do so. You've shifted to arguing about conversion rates for non-English speakers, which is a fair, but separate point. (I'm also curious if small words and simple sentences really do translate to higher conversion rates.) I am talking about prose in general.

> PS Morose is not "very sad" :-)

Nor is awestruck "very amazed." The smaller your vocabulary is, the less you can communicate (as redblacktree pointed out, this is demonstrated quite dramatically by George Orwell's 1984, wherein the language is dumbed down so much and has so many words removed that the citizenry can't express emotions the state deems negative.)

This is the truly tragic thing about this incessant anti-intellectualism: people lose some measure of ability to express what they really mean or feel, all in the name of meeting the lowest common denominator.

(For the record, I am not a native speaker, and I _love_ seeing words that I don't understand.)

<comment><USER2> There's a difference between "somebody" needing a dictionary, and "20% of your audience".

If you write a book, go ahead and insert "fluffy" words, if they are more precise. If you write a blog post or create site copy, assume the worst and keep it simple.

(PS Neither am I, and so do I, but I admire writers like Steinbeck and Hemingway. Simple and powerful. It's actually harder, not easier.)

<comment><USER4> The problem is that you perceive them as 'fluffy' words. When you're used to them, they increase precision in communication.

I agree that you should write to your audience, but at the same time, don't aim for the lowest common denominator. That's a race to the bottom. Site copy for a commercial site should be pitched at your customer's level. A personal blog post should be written the way you want to write - it's _your_ voice. It's okay to expect your audience to be of a given quality, or for them to stretch themselves a little to understand you fluently. The other thing is that the more detailed your language, the better you can write between the lines. Not every concept needs to be explained directly when writing.

Keep in mind also that the article is talking about creative writing, something people read to enjoy. Striking out tired common terms like 'very' makes your writing more unique and interesting. The article isn't about how to do copywriting, though you still wouldn't want to use 'very' all that much there, either - repetitive phrases make for bad copy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of an English teacher I had in high school who disallowed us from using a list of banned words in a writing assignment. In previous assignments students had overused them to pad their word count and to inflate the apparent sophistication of their vocabulary. Among these words were "basically" and "essentially" which he told us were garbage words (as far as essay-writing as concerned). It stuck with me.

There seem to be many words which are useful in conversation but for whatever reason are not that good for efficient writing, or so overused in speech (for lack of better words as one scrambles for word choice in real time) that it's hard to avoid using them in writing.

<comment><USER6> Rules like these aren't really good guide to style though. They are the sort of guidelines suited to curing teenagers of bad habits. That's the problem I have with articles like these. They aren't adult discussions of language; they do not teach effective writing, and do not promote an understanding of language. One should ideally outgrow such pedagogy by one's second year of college.

<comment><USER7> In this case, the rule is just not to use the word "very." I can't think of a single context where "very" doesn't degrade from the semantics and syntax of a sentence. I think this rule is appropriate to any and every style.

<comment><USER8> I don't know what it means to "degrade from the semantics and syntax of a sentence".

<comment><USER7> It makes for shitty writing.

<comment><USER8> That's a much more coherent claim, if subjective. I agree with the weak claim ("it is usually best to drop the very and possibly replace the word it modified"). I disagree with the strong claim ("it is _always_ best ...").

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I first moved to America, my speech was interpreted as not enthusiastic. A trick I use to now is to just put very in front of everything. I'm very happy that this fixed the problem.

<comment><USER10> I thought that was, like, common knowledge. Everybody, like, speaks like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> But what if I want to say "very terrified"?

As a side note, I was always amused by the number of generic superlatives available in many languages. In English, we've already got "very", and "damn" as the site mentions, along with "really", "extremely", "amazingly" and so on. In British English, you can say "bloody" or "damnedly" or "shockingly" or "terribly" or any of a vast number of other superlatives, not to ignore the crass "fucking".

My favourite has to be the French "vachement", which could be translated as "cowly".

<comment><USER12> Terrified isn't a gradable adjective (it appears to be a textbook example, in fact).

<comment><USER13> Some of the best writing of course breaks rules on gradable adjectives though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is the very model of a modern formal reference

The rule should be respected but not treated with due deference

The use for truth or 'verity' is evident but venerable

We very much avoid the use of very much in general.

<comment><USER15> This is the very model of a modern formal reference

The rule should be respected but with only its due deference

The use for truth or 'verity' is evident and venerable

We very much avoid the use of very much in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The problem with style guides is that they're often conflated by both the reader and the writer as rulebooks. They should instead be used as sources of writing ideas, or communication improvement aids -- to target writing for specific audiences.

English can be assembled in all kinds of wonderful and creative ways. The best writing is when you coin a phrase that style guides insist shouldn't work, but communicate something beautifully. "Most excellent", for example, is a wonderful example. It's concise, it's nonstandard and it's brings about vivid imagery of two time travelling wanna be rock stars.

The worst style guides are outright wrong. "very afraid" doesn't mean "terrified". How lame does "be afraid, be very afraid" sounds as "be afraid, be terrified"? "very poor" doesn't mean "destitute", I grew up very poor, but we were never destitute. Being "very rude" is has a _very_ different connotation from "vulgar". This guide takes finely graded connotations and turns them into extremes.

It's worth using it to double check if what you mean is the extreme, and you accidentally used something else, but beyond that, a search and replace of "very <word>" with any of these suggestions is likely to make your writing worse.

English can be beautiful, enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER17> I was always bothered by the overuse of the word "pretty" on the Internet in place of "very." As a non-native English speaker, I grew up thinking of _pretty_ as synonym of beautiful. Now that I see everyone using it as they would use _very_ , I find it hard to parse.

<comment><USER18> Where I grew up we used "wicked" as an intensifier, as in "he is wicked nice." Sound any better?

<comment><USER19> "Wicked" was extremely common in Vermont where I grew up, and I expect it still is. I sometimes find myself using it in everyday speech and it never seems to raise an eyebrow even out west here. "Friggin" is another word that I think is mostly a New England thing.

<comment><USER20> Where I am "friggin" has the context of a junior high kid who thinks it's a bad swear word, but doesn't quite have the nerve to say "fuck". So you don't generally hear it from people out of their teens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Isn't this ass-backwards? It seems to me that if exhausted really does just mean the same as "very tired", etc, we should be dumping all these other more intense adjectives. If your purpose in writing is to communicate, then needlessly complicating your speech with uncommon words is a bug, not a feature.

<comment><USER22> I prefer 'double plus tired'.

<comment><USER23> Reminds me of how I thought those forms in that book weren't really such a bad idea but were presented in such a negative way.

<comment><USER24> Imagine the comments section of every website filtered to Newspeak.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When I was in high school we couldn't use the verb "to be" in assignments for English class. No is, am, are, was, were, has been, will be, etc.

Of course this is overly restrictive, but 80-90% of the time there was a better way to phrase the sentence if you thought about removing the "be" verb. 10% of the time it was awkward, which sucked.

Aside: also taught me that MS Word has a very advanced find feature where I could give it "be" and it would find me all of the above conjugations.

<comment><USER23> That is just completely absurd. How would I even say that without using "is"? That .. is, no .. Complete absurdity is , no.. Complete absurdity dwells in that concept? That sounds like I'm trying to write some kind of poetry. The verb "to be" is one of the most important verbs of the entire language. Of any language, even in cases like Latin where it's not said but implied to be there. It is a fundamental tool of communication to equate the existential states of different concepts with the verb "to be". These writings must have sounded awful. No real writing ever avoids the use of "to be". Being is too important of a concept. Cogito ergo sum, as is said. Existential qualification is too important to throw away.

<comment><USER26> If you intend to emphasize the object in that first sentence, the passive voice is correct (as in this sentence). However, we usually do not want to do that. Consider:

The chair leg has been chewed by my bored dog.

vs

My bored dog chewed the chair leg.

The former, being passive, emphasizes the chair leg rather than the subject.

Anyway, a non-passive rewrite of your first sentence is: "I find that completely absurd". Note the active voice. I find it a truer representation of your thoughts. _You_ are making a judgement on the concept, and this wording makes that clear.

<comment><USER23> I guess I mostly prefer to emphasize the object when the actor isn't necessary. I've known the deal with the passive voice. It's better used when it makes the sentence shorter rather than longer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Consider not using the word "sagacious", though.

<comment><USER27> he said, sagaciously.

<comment><USER12> Also, avoid adverbs. :)

<comment><USER28> he said, adverbially.

I see what you did there, isn't 'also' an adverb?

<comment><USER12> :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can't agree with her article. These are legitimate words with their own distinct connotations. Saying "very old" conveys a different idea than saying "ancient".

She's encouraging sensationalist writing where down-to-earth content would often be easier to understand and convey the author's meaning clearer and more accurately.

</comment><comment><USER30> OCR'd it since I'm going to add it to my dotfiles. Might help somebody:

[http://paste.ubuntu.com/6949984/](http://paste.ubuntu.com/6949984/)

<comment><USER31> I hadn't even realised that was an image. Text-as-images make me ver... furious!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> 'Very' isn't necessarily a bad modifier, it just shouldn't be used very often.

<comment><USER33> Tee hee you used it! Really though, I think there is a big difference between "Very tired" and "exhausted".

Although the technical mind I think is bugged more about precision rather than flow or poeticness of speech Ι think we can appreciate it...

<comment><USER32> Especially in certain situations like "I'm not very tired".

Offhand you could say "I'm not overly tired" or "I'm not too tired", but those could subtly change the meaning of what you're trying to say or sound unnatural in everyday speech.

<comment><USER34> Both of those are modifiers as well, and could fall victim to the same overuse. The only surefire remedy is picking more words that describe a variety of degrees of tiredness.

Tired, exhausted, washed up, worn out, fatigued, beat, weary, run down, depleted...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> And then next week we will get an article on how not to alienate your readers with pointless, highfalutin language like "sagacious" and "jubilant."

It's a huge blind spot for writers to believe that repetition has a cost, but large vocabularies don't. This is ingrained in them by English teachers, because avoiding repetition and using lots of fancy words is hard work, and thus that is what teachers value.

For most readers, though, the opposite is closer to the truth: They will ignore repetition (or might even interpret it as useful structure) until the point where it becomes ridiculous, but they quickly get stuck on odd words or language usage that requires them to _work_ to read a piece.

</comment><comment><USER31> A small minority of prescriptive linguists: "People are saying FOO a lot. We don't like them saying FOO. Let's tell them not to say FOO and try to teach them alternatives."

Everybody else: "FOO"

And the world keeps on turning.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder what Orwell would think. As mentioned in an article on writing by Orwell, posted here some time ago, didn't he prefer simple constructions such as "very poor" to "destitute"? I wonder if he would think most of the recommendations are actually snobbish and more complex to understand.

Not saying Orwell is right and the article wrong. Just that this kind of recommendations is very subjective (quick, someone find me a replacement for "very subjective"!). A matter of taste, actually, and not all accomplished writers agree on this.

</comment><comment><USER37> Have you ever read 1984. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)

I'm of the opinion we should dispose of useless words. Why even have the word terrified in the dictionary when you can use very afraid?

Very good and you'd use superb? Over the dozens of other words that can be used to replace good? I say get rid of them all. I'd also go with the idea of removing antonyms in exchange for un- prefixed words because you do have the issue that antonyms are not exact opposite.

You also have the issue with the comparisons that very can be less intensive. Very wet does not mean soaked. Additionally, being anxious modernly implies a mixture of stress, worry, possibly fright. Potentially changing your meaning is not usually desired.

However, this article only describes how to avoid using very, and that may be a good goal. There are many times when you can better describe your meaning without using very. However, you cannot do it in every instance.

</comment><comment><USER38> That "substitute 'damn'" quote is damn good, but the attribution to Twain is damn bogus:

[http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/08/29/substitute- damn/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/08/29/substitute-damn/)

He never said that the coldest winter he spent was a summer in San Francisco either. Damn.

</comment><comment><USER39> Avoiding words seems rather arbitrary. English has a lot of over-used words, for example the words "of", "a", "the", "with", etc, etc. It seems more likely to me that people just associate certain styles of writing with professional or amateur writers. Rather than the style of writing being objectively superior.

For example use of slang or misspellings becomes highly associated with the education or intelligence of the writer. This creates a feedback loop where people trying to appear as high-status as possible imitate the writing style, look up standardized spellings, avoid "less-formal" words, etc.

I'm not saying that this is true in this case, it's just something I notice.

</comment><comment><USER40> This naturally lends itself to being implemented inside a tool that searches for the word "very" in a text and if the next word is one of those listed, replaces both with that occurrence.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, the list of alternates doesn't do much for me, but the notion of doing an edit pass looking for "very" so I can spot bad sentences does sound useful.

<comment><USER32> Sounds like something that could be integrated into that Hemingway [1] tool that was posted here a few days ago.

Edit: It looks like the tool already marks "very" for omission.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7223969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7223969)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The advice attributed to Kleinbaum is actually from the movie Dead Poets Society, written by Tom Schulman ([http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097165](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097165)). Googling for "Kleinbaum + Dead Poets Society" suggests that it is a novelisation that came later: [http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Poets-Society-N- Kleinbaum/dp/1401...](http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Poets-Society-N- Kleinbaum/dp/1401308775).

</comment><comment><USER42> I find such tips handy for writing. Don't use "very"; avoid starting a sentence with "I" [1]; don't end words with "ly"; avoid "to be"; etc.

An excellent summary of such tips is Stephen King's _On Writing_. While the bulk of it is interesting (autobiography), the 16-page section "Toolbox" is a fantastic collection of writing guidance. Highly recommended, to the point that I look for opportunities to mention it.

[1] - I know. Selective breaking of rules has its place too.

<comment><USER43> "Avoiding starting with 'I'" sounds context-dependent. In a journal article, sure, that's bad form, but here on HN in a more conversational environment I don't see a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is a good list and lesson.

I remember learning about this in my creative writing classes in college, and the other great tip we got at about the same time was to do something similar when writing in past tense by ditching the "ings" and changing references like "he was running home" with "he ran home" or "she was burning the papers" with "she burned the papers". It turns out that too many "ings" can make a story drag.

<comment><USER6> There's a difference in meaning between "he ran home" and "he was running home." Most people aren't aware enough of the language they use to avoid overusing certain things, but mechanical transformations aren't the answer. One should aspire to learn how language works, and then use it appropriately.

<comment><USER44> Yeah, bad example. I was referring more to removing "was" and "ing" if you are overusing it too much, particularly when writing scenes that include action.

It really does work though. Through peer review, I found that making some changes along these lines vastly improved some of my stories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Wow. Such article, Very informative, Much useful, So cool.

</comment><comment><USER46> A useless word I see used often is "just" as in "you just do" or "i just need". For me, it implies triviality or adds nothing.

</comment><comment><USER47> I have been using Hemingway App on my medium essays since last week and every time I removed the word "very", the sentence became better.

</comment><comment><USER48> I would love to see a dataset of English word-pairs rated by their severity (i.e., how much "very" applies to modify the first to get the second on a scale from -1 to 1).

For example, "quiet" would have "silent" rated as 1, "roomy" might have "spacious" listed close to 0, and "gorgeous" would have "pretty" as negative.

</comment><comment><USER49> The old 'diction' command distributed the Writers Workbench on Unix systems of yore had this warning (among many others). I used it a lot!

        http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/diction/diction.1.html

I _think_ its available in source but a quick web search didn't find such.

</comment><comment><USER50> A hyena can be fierce. And lions can be ferocious. But honey badgers are always very ferocious.

</comment><comment><USER29> That's text. Very plain text. It even fits perfectly in a plain old HTML table. But it's an image?

Wat.

<comment><USER51> Shows up on facebook walls when article is shared. Gets more clicks. Also pinnable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Very good article.

<comment><USER53> Agreed. Very useful, indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> That was a very good article. I've wanted to read something like that for a very long time, but it's very difficult to find such material of very hiqh quality.

To whoever posted this, thank you very much.

</comment><comment><USER55> What's the preferred replacement to 'very currency'?

</comment><comment><USER15> s/very/insanely/

Other acceptable alternatives:

s/very/fantastically/

s/very/heart-breakingly/

s/very/awesomely/

s/very/literally/

<comment><USER56> My personal favorite: s/very/mind-bogglingly/

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Avoid "exciting" and "passionate" as well, two other words so overused as to be meaningless.

</comment><comment><USER58> Most of those words can (and often are) still be emphasized by "very" :-). There's no escaping it

</comment><comment><USER59> Simple: find/replace 'very' for ''. The meaning is unchanged.

</comment><comment><USER60> Is "very, very" okay? Or "really really"? I use that a lot.

<comment><USER61> Nope, anything you use a lot loses its punch. (That's the idea behind the article)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Way #1: Don't right an article about not using the world 'very'

</comment><comment><USER63> I find myself using the word "nice" too much sometimes!

</comment><comment><USER64> "Come on, it'll be very."

\-- Heathers

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Quite useful, I'll say.

</comment><comment><USER65> very cold != freezing

be careful not to overuse hyperboles.

</comment><comment><USER66> very rude = vulgar ?

</comment><comment><USER7> "Rather, very, little, pretty -- these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words." \-- William Strunk Jr.

I find it hard to argue with Strunk on this and most other things related to writing.</comment>


Create the 'Instagram look' in your video/photo easily - <AUTHOR> http://easy2rec.com/filters/

<comment><USER2> Amazing. Just download and installed and have tried. The sotware is really incredible, simple to use and very powerful. I recommend 5 _</comment>


BillforBill - How many $ have you wasted optimizing webdesigns for IE? - <AUTHOR> http://billforbill.com/

<comment><USER2> This stuff is getting a little tiresome.

Sometimes you have to support old junk and no one likes doing that. As long as you get paid, that's part of the job.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah thats pretty true but supporting "technologies" wich are truly backdated is a pain.

I personally give IE6 a special CSS that those users see the webpage in a pretty but not graphical enhanced design. so thats a plus for me and if the client agrees this we are fine.</comment></comment>


Trail blazing innovators - Use Emacs - <AUTHOR> http://bestinclass.dk/index.clj/2010/07/trail-blazing-innovators.html <comment><USER2> I tried it. I really did. I decided I'd be a rock-star code-god Emacs user that did everything in emacs.

I set up Wanderlust, and by god it sorta worked with Gmail. Sorta. There were little problems with messages getting resurrected as "unread" even after I'd read them, and composing a message meant my "drafts" folder got pounded by incremental saved messages every 30 seconds, but whatever.

Then I tried to find a web browser that runs in Emacs and will display pages properly, not in the broken Links/Lynx way (with or without pictures). No dice. Oh well.

Then I started using IRC and my IM clients in Emacs. They worked ok, but it was around this point that I started to realize what an incredible pain in the ass it is to manage buffers in Emacs.

To start with, you never _really_ have enough space on screen, so a lot of the buffers end up being hidden. Ok, whatever, but then you realize it's a hassle to even switch over to a different buffer, with the M-x b type-some-of-the- buffer-name dance, since you can't keep them all on-screen to switch around with C-x o. Of course, C-x o begins to get cumbersome when I have more than a couple windows/buffers open on screen at a time.

Then I realized that I'd really rather make my fingers feel happier (and yes, I use the swapped Caps Lock key) and just use this amazing tool we already have. It's designed for selecting things, and it moves spatially in 2 dimensions. I guess I don't look so haxxor-1337 anymore, waving that mouse around like a clueless Windows user, but I'm actually happy now that I left the Cult of the Key-Combo.

These days, I read my email in Firefox because I just don't care, and I do all my coding and text-editing in Acme, because I do care. For all the bullshit Emacsians spew about "losing focus by switching applications", they're switching applications at least as much as I do, every single time they M-x wanderlust, or switch over to the Org buffer--they're just switching applications with M-x b, rather than Alt-Tab.

<comment><USER3> I agree that using emacs for _everything_ is not for everyone. But with regards to switching between buffers being cumbersome:

1\. If you're not willing to change your keybindings to taste, Emacs basically isn't for you; its default bindings are terrible. I suggest binding switch-to- buffer (C-x b) and other-window (C-x o) to single, easy-to-reach chords (I use C-. and C-' respectively).

2\. switch-to-buffer sucks. Use iswitchb-mode; it gives you interactive completion of buffer names with substring matching. It also lists your buffers in most-recently-used order, so switching back-and-forth between two buffers is trivial. (There's also ido-mode, which adds interactive completion to even more things with even more features.)

Basically this is the same issue that emacs has always had: the learning curve is steep and you have to invest some time and explore in order to find settings that work for you. (I'm sure you're happy with your current setup; I'm making this post more for people who might be scared away from Emacs than to try and convert you.)

<comment><USER4> I'm pretty happy with LustyExplorer [1] which sounds like it does what iswitchb-mode does, but also has a decent find-file browser.

1\. <http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/LustyExplorer>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like Emacs is just becoming a large window manager in itself. Instead of having a lot of apps and using Alt-Tab to go between them, you stay in Emacs, have buffers, and use C-x o to flip between them.

<comment><USER6> GNU screen is better at that, IMHO. But then screen doesn't have Google Maps <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1472314> :-)

<comment><USER7> You're comparing apples and mares; one is a tasty fruit, the other is nature's Toyota Prius.

GNU Screen can not possibly have Google Maps or any other applicationy feature as long as it is a _vt multiplexer_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To me this reads "We're better than you because we're all using emacs". Sure making the best use of development tools is important but it's just a means to an end, that can be reached in different ways.

<comment><USER9> Right. And strawmen like

 _I know that there are many would disagree and claim that Mouse-driven IDEs and XML based configs are the way to move forward, but I firmly believe that such convictions stem from a lack of exposure._

don't help the argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The title sounds like: Wear MJ shoes and you'll play like MJ.

<comment><USER11> I think the proper analogy is: if you want to be like Kurt Cobain, get a real guitar instead of playing Rockband on expert all the time.

And yes, I did just compare Eclipse/Studio/etc to Rockband :)

<comment><USER7> The Cobain analogy best fits TextMate or Notepad++, not Emacs.

The Emacs analogy might hold for SrV or Jeff Beck; exceptionally good, but only a celebrity among a small community of die-hard fans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I used to use and love emacs, but I stopped because the various control key combinations were too hard on my hands.

<comment><USER13> Did you try mapping caps lock as a control key, like on the Sun keyboards? Before I did this I had trouble with Emacs, but since then it's been perfect for me.

<comment><USER14> This is good advice, but it's not enough.

I found I had to actively train myself to use two-handed key chords. Right control-w, left control n, etc.

<comment><USER15> I remapped my CTRL, ALT and Left Shift keys so I can easily press them with my thumbs in any combination (I use a TypeMatrix).

No more alternating nonsense. Pressing modifiers is instantaneous and requires no thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Clojure debugging stuff at about 12:00 into the screencast is a really nice piece of information.

</comment><comment><USER17> I expected this to be a survey of what editors trail blazing innovators use. I'm disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wanderlust doesn't look to bad. Had some trouble getting GNUS to work with GMail, might give that one a try.

</comment><comment><USER19> emacs is to text editors what Dwarf Fortress is to video games.

</comment><comment><USER20> this screencast is the first thing that's made me seriously consider switching to Emacs from vi

<comment><USER21> The important thing to keep in mind is that emacs is ridicously bad at editing text.

It does everything else well, but coming from Vim you just need to accept you'll never edit text as well.

edit: And to add some of the best emacs I got was don't worry about closing buffers. Focus on work and ignore the window and buffer management. In the end you won't notice if you've got greps/acks, manpages, emails, or whatever open because you're too busy writing code.

<comment><USER22> _The important thing to keep in mind is that emacs is ridicously bad at editing text._

I don't know why this is being voted up. This is utter nonsense and not supported by any arguments.

<comment><USER21> What do you mean supported by arguments? It's obviously my opinion comparing Emacs to Vim.

Vim is excellent at editing text. Really really good at it. Emacs is not. It's better than this vanilla comment box in firefox for sure, but compared to Vim's modal editing it's a dog. People injure themselves typing in Emacs. It's actually dangerous!

And my comment was getting votes because people agreed until you came along with your meta comment.

<comment><USER23> You are bad at editing text in Emacs. I am bad at editing text in Vim. That really has nothing to do with their intrinsic value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> vi vs emacs war plz 2 not have.

</comment><comment><USER25> The only Emacs command you need to know is CTRL-X CTRL-C</comment>


LinkedIn to File for IPO Today - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/01/27/linkedin-reportedly-set-to-file-for-ipo-as-soon-as-today/

<comment><USER2> You could link to the original source, which is cited in the first line of this article.

[http://kara.allthingsd.com/20110127/here-comes-another- web-i...](http://kara.allthingsd.com/20110127/here-comes-another-web-ipo- linkedin-s-1-filing-imminent/)

<comment><USER3> Better yet, link to the SEC where, eventually, the S-1 will be published in its entirety: [http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse- edgar?action=getcompany&CI...](http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse- edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001271024&owner=exclude&count=40)

RSS feed: [http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse- edgar?action=getcompany&CI...](http://sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse- edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001271024&type=&dateb=&owner=exclude&start=0&count=40&output=atom)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone else not like LinkedIn at all? It is a website that I actively don't _want_ to use but feel enormously pressured by peers to be on.

I mean, I can't even tell these people to fuck off like I can with my friends that want me to be on Facebook.

<comment><USER5> I am on LinkedIn, and I don't actively use it. The only active user I met once was a recruiter of creatives. She logged into LinkedIn and we saw her private inbox. Filled with hundreds of messages about people in her industry who were looking for someone or looking to hire someone. I was amazed, we were amazed (this was 2006). She gave us one really good tip - almost all the job postings on LinkedIn are posted with the name of the hiring manager. That is why job searching on LinkedIn is better (even if they aren't posting the hiring managers' name now in 2011).

At a bar a month ago, I met someone who asked if I knew a friend of his who used to work for my company. Quick search of the LinkedIn app and found him. LinkedIn is gold for finding out where someone in the technology industry is now working. Especially if you have connections who have hundreds of connections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> >While LinkedIn's move is unconfirmed, Kara Swisher has a reliable track record in such matters. There's little more to say about this report at the moment, but we'll be watching what happens once the New York stock exchange closes today.

NYSE? Isn't it more likely that LinkedIn would debut on NASDAQ?

<comment><USER7> Not as much lately. SolarWinds also IPO'd on the NYSE.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> They filed: <http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/27/linkedin-files-for-ipo/>

</comment><comment><USER9> The title is misleading. The article says "as soon as today".

</comment><comment><USER10> Has anyone ever purchased stocks early on for a startup that went IPO? Is this a wise thing to do?

<comment><USER11> "Has anyone ever purchased stocks early on for a startup that went IPO? Is this a wise thing to do?"

There is a lot of academic research on this that you should look at.

<comment><USER12> Links and elaborate?

<comment><USER11> I don't know of anything offhand, I just know that it's been extensively studied. One of the terms you might want to search for is "first day pop." If you read through a few of those papers then you should be able to find most of the other important metrics as well.

For a company like LinkedIn with relatively weak fundamentals, one would expect the executives to purposely underprice the stock in order to generate a big first day pop because they are looking for an exit. So if I had money to invest, I'd probably buy at the opening bell and sell at noon. But don't take that as investment advice.

<comment><USER13> The "first day pop" is largely unavailable to the average person. You're right that underwriters price the IPO for this phenomenon, but it is to entice their clients to buy. The pop is from outsiders (you) buying from insiders.

If you're not dealing in big money, you won't be buying from the underwriter at the IPO price, you'll be buying at the higher price (if you put in a market order), or not at all (if you put in a limit order near the offering price).

That's not to say that investing in an IPO is a bad long-run decision.

<comment><USER11> You can still buy as soon as the market opens though, as long as you're fine paying a few bucks over the insider price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Off topic: I've always been surprised by LinkedIn's success, though it seems that's a problem with my perception as a freelance web developer.

I can see their value to those looking for salaried jobs, but I'd be interested to hear if/how people in a similar situation to me find LinkedIn useful.

</comment><comment><USER15> Awesome, I hope Linkedin's rise creates the opportunity for a nextgen upstart to emerge. There's a lot to improve on Linkedin's model (admittedly a very good one). Get to work!

<comment><USER16> What do you think could be improved?

<comment><USER17> I'm not who you were asking, but snappier performance.

And reward people for good use of the site. Share your contact list with your contacts? You get some free InMail credits. Complete profile? Some more. etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Malariaspot.org A game to help diagnose malaria - <AUTHOR> http://malariaspot.org <comment><USER2> I have the feeling Evgeny Morozov could have included this in his "To save everything, click here" [http://clickherethebook.com/](http://clickherethebook.com/)</comment>


Blocking website ads with a hosts file - <AUTHOR> https://debugandrelease.blogspot.com/2019/01/how-to-block-online-ads-with-hosts-file.html <comment><USER2> It is much easier to use a HOSTS file as a whitelist rather than some sort of blacklist.

HOSTS is useful but limited. For example, it does not allow for wildcards like DNS.

Unbound is included in many distributions nowadays and it has plenty of features now that can make it act like a HOSTS file or authoritative server. These work well for ad blocking.

Blocking ads is like blocking traffic using a firewall. Firewall rulesets often block everything by default and then lines are added to whitelist desired traffic. This can be easier to manage than allowing every domain by default and trying to come up with a list of all undesired domains. The same firewall-like approach has worked well for me in blocking ads. All domains blocked by default; desired domains are whitelisted.

If you use Chrome browser, it will even help you formulate your whitelist. Go to chrome://site-engagement after some routine browsing.

You might find there are some shocking entries in those massive blocking HOSTS files popular on the internet if you ever choose to read one. Sites you will never, ever visit in your lifetime online. Grossly inefficient.

It also appears sections have been cut and pasted from a variety of disparate sources without any sort of verification.

I tried to read through one of these massive HOSTS files once and had to stop as I found it too repulsive. There were far too many dark corners of the web listed that the average web user will never visit. Makes one wonder how the authors even know about these domains.

People's browsing habits are not all the same. A "one-size fits all" HOSTS file seems inappropriate.

<comment><USER3> Sounds interesting, care to elaborate a bit? How do you deal with, eg: CDNs? Whitelist *.cloudfront.net, I suppose? How often do you revisit your whitelist?

<comment><USER2> I have found I can block cloudfront domains by default with almost no inconvenience.

Occasionally something like a download link, where the webmaster has chosen to use cloudfront for that specific resource, might require that I whitelist a cloudfront domain temporarily. If the domain has a unique subdomain and I am confident no ads are ever served from that subdomain, I might whitelist it permanently.

Every user is different and visits different websites. Each user's needs are to some extent unique. I think you have to find what works for you. No one can do this for you.

The more engaged you become in blocking ads, when you stop relying 100% on a third party to try take care of it for you, I think the more familiar you become in exactly what domains you need to access to accomplish whatever it is you are doing on the web. That knowledge allows you to make yoiur whitelist.

Meanwhile anyone using Chrome can tap into the built-in diagnostics via chrome://chrome-urls to get a very quick and easy analysis of what domains they are requesting and the ones they actually need:

        chrome://site-engagement

To answer the second question, if I am visiting new sites, then the whitelist is modified accordingly. Otherwise I have found the majority of IP addresses to be quite stable. If I am visiting many random websites, eventually I will find one or two that are changing their address either perirodically or permanently.

Personally I like to know if websites are changing their IP address. I think there can be good and bad reasons for changing IP address. When one is using whitelisting instead of unrestricted recursive queries to a DNS cache then it becomes easy to identify websites that are changing IP address and to monitor the changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have been using this custom host file for a few months and it works like a charm. Just have to update it from time to time (but it can be automated).

[https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

"This repository consolidates several reputable hosts files, and merges them into a unified hosts file with duplicates removed. A variety of tailored hosts files are provided."

<comment> martin-adams That's very comprehensive.

I wonder if you could circumvent the hosts method by rotating through unique subdomains as your ads server. My understanding is that you can't wildcard the hosts file.

<comment> move-on-by Yes, hosts do not support wildcards. There are some solutions to blocking advertisers that use tricks like you suggest. A PiHole is able to do wildcard blocking. Also, uBlock Origin (which accepts host formatted lists) will automatically block any subdomain of a blocked root. So as long as the parent domain is also blocked, any subdomains would also be included

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A good combination is uBlock Origin and Nano Defender (both correctly configured, there are steps you can follow online). uBlock Origin does a good job of blocking most stuff, and Nano Defender does a good job of stopping sites from detecting you have blocked their adverts, thus stopping the website from displaying a "Hey, you have an AdBlock, we need adverts to keep this site free. Disable your AdBlock and refresh to view this content".

<comment><USER6> Am I the only one that likes the "Hey, you have an AdBlock" popups?

They come up and I spend a few seconds deciding if it's important to me to read what is behind it, and 95% of the time that answer is "no". Saves me a TON of time. :-)

<comment><USER7> When I see them I make a mental note to not visit that site again. That's getting more difficult with more sites going that route, though.

<comment><USER8> I just add the site to my hosts file pointing to localhost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love how the blog itself serves pixels and ads galore. Apparently it's ok if it does yield revenue for the right persons.

<comment><USER10> It's the perfect plan. A "how to block ads" guide is going to attract tons of users who aren't already blocking ads.

<comment> martin-adams Haha. On a slight tangent, you could create a 'business' around - "The perfect home security system before you go on holiday". Enter your name, address, and last date you need it installed by for a quote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I disabled the ad-blocker on a Liverpool Echo page because I wanted to watch the video. 421 cookies and one reboot later I was able to watch the advert before the video and then the 50 second video clip.

I presume that the 421 cookies are tracking something, only a hundred or so go to the Liverpool Echo, the others go to 20 or so other places. Nonetheless there are not many people reading local papers online, it is too much effort wading through the junk that gets downloaded. 6 megabytes to display 15 sentences and a video embed is a bit much.

In the olden days the newspapers were read by many people. Nowadays the newspaper readers are 'read' by many people. It has gone back to front.

How often does anyone here see a link to a newspaper and think to jump straight to the comments in order to see if the article is worth reading? For me this does not happen if the link is to a blog or other site likely to be sensible with the inline spam.

The sooner this ad-spam business dies off the better.

<comment><USER12> My local weekly paper has very little content, and they want £2 for it, that's too rich.

Oddly they put every store on Twitter. And email me about it. God knows where they get the money from.

I do weep for the lack of coverage of local democracy though. Where journalism dies, political manipulation and blatant lies run rife. All we have left is private eye to cover the most egregious cases

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the note about coverage of local democracy correlating with corruption.

Perhaps you listened to the same Hidden Brain episode?

 _Starving The Watchdog: Who Foots The Bill When Newspapers Disappear?_

[https://www.npr.org/2018/12/09/675092808/starving-the- watchd...](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/09/675092808/starving-the-watchdog-who- foots-the-bill-when-newspapers-disappear)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used this before I switched to Pi-hole. It worked quite well in combintion hosts file + uBlock origin + uMatrix. One thing though, more and more sites now serve ads and content from the same domain, meaning if you block ads at DNS level you'll block the content too.

<comment><USER15> I run Pi-hole too, can handle much more than the hosts file of a windows computer. It was a while since I used the hosts file to block ads but at that time the computer could lock up quite a while now and then, and the problem dissappeared when I cleared the hosts file again.

It's realy neat to get autoprotection for all your devices at the same time with the Pi-hole.

Just ad uBlock to the browser to remove the rest ads and get a much smother web experience without distractions :-)

<comment><USER16> also: hosts file can cause problems with things like Windows Update and other software that you might want to keep working. Pi-hole is easier to disable. I always forget that I installed some hosts file blocks with Blackbird ( [https://www.getblackbird.net/](https://www.getblackbird.net/) ) which is an otherwise pretty nice tool (aside from that and how it's unclear if you're enabling or disabling something, since the switches "toggle" something instead of expressing that you want to disable or enable it specifically).

+1 for pihole; rPis / odroids / SBCs / NUCs / home servers are easy enough to run that it's worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's kind of crazy how we've been playing cat-and-mouse games between ads and ad-blockers for over a decade and yet websites still serve ads from third party domains. If they started serving ads from their own domain and randomized the IDs of elements, then they would be much harder to block.

<comment><USER17> Facebook does exactly that.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt23cXZXgAEDdW4.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dt23cXZXgAEDdW4.jpg)

<comment><USER18> Wow. I automatically assumed that you could still circumvent the random div IDs by just matching against the text itself ([https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Procedural- cosmetic-f...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Procedural-cosmetic- filters)), but they even obfuscate that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "0.0.0.0 is the invalid, un-routable address."

      That's apparently a windows-centric statement.  In Linux,

0.0.0.0 is the same as 127.0.0.1, whereas 0.0.0.1 works as your invalid address.

<comment><USER20> By golly, Linux does map 0.0.0.0 to localhost. That produced a bunch of searches to try to find out why it does that. Nothing found. At this point I strongly suspect that Linux is simply exhibiting incorrect behaviour...

It does it for :: as well...

<comment><USER21> 0.0.0.0 is the address programs will listen on to be able to respond to any IP address assigned to the system.

When you are setting up a socket to listen for connections on a particular port you would specify 0.0.0.0 so then things can connect from anywhere like localhost or on any of the many possible IP addresses assigned to the machine, or you can specify a particular IP address and only be able to get traffic from that. For example if you wanted a program only reachable from the same machine you could listen on localhost (127.0.0.1) and then nothing external could directly connect to that particular service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The very first thing I do when I buy a new Android phone is to unlock it in order to install AdAway [https://adaway.org/](https://adaway.org/)

<comment> lota-putty Use [https://zenz-solutions.de/personaldnsfilter/](https://zenz- solutions.de/personaldnsfilter/) without unlocking it.

<comment><USER23> But unlike rooting and using Adaway, all the other options on Android act as a VPN, and prevent you from using any other VPN, which makes them less handy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> <IMG SRC="[http://(20-random-digits).example.com/ad.png"](http://\(20-random- digits\).example.com/ad.png") />

<comment><USER25> Yes, and these aren't that easy to manage, but still doable, but thanks to a really helpful and big community it's easier. Some tools allow for regex, wildcards and similar.

The bigger issue comes from the likes of Google/YouTube/Facebook who host their ads on the same domain as their main website, ergo, if you want to block the ad domains, you'll be blocked the main domains as a whole. In this case, the only way to block ads is through an in-browser addon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There's a nice and maintained host file here which blackholes most ad sites: [https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/](https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/). As a bonus, it blackholes some shock sites as well.

<comment><USER27> The zero[1] version of it works a little faster.

I am using the Unified hosts file[2] (mentioned in the article), it is a great way to combine many other hosts including Dan Pollock's list.

[1][https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/](https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/)

[2] [https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The problem is, some (poorly written) websites don't work without the ads. Sometime you just don't care and close the tab, but sometimes you don't have a choice and in that case disabling the host file is a bit of a hassle. I prefer simple extensions like uBlock Origin which do all the work for me and that I can enable/disable as needed.

<comment><USER29> I've seen a lot of websites that don't work without scripts in my time, but never one that doesn't work without ads.

It would be possible to make one like that by hosting your content and your ads on the same domain, that would trip up naive hostfile blockers, but of course if companies were doing this quite a lot of people who habitually block ads wouldn't mind them doing so, since one of the key complaints against ads is data harvesting by third party ad providers.

<comment><USER28> I've seen websites being broken because they load some ad js, and when it fails it throws a js error which prevent the rest of the script from working. Also some websites wrap their outside urls in tracking urls, and these break as well with ad blockers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is all well and good until Google decides to force the use of DNS-over- HTTPS and completely bypasses the host operating system. Browsers have also done this for certificate trust lists. This takes more and more power away from the users.

<comment><USER31> Good thing there are alternate browsers then! :)

<comment><USER32> Such as?

DNS over HTTPs isn't just a Chrome issue; firefox are the ones who are actually shoving it down your throat.

I know most users here on HN are firefox users, but come on... It's an issue with _all_ browsers, not individual.

<comment><USER31> Firefox allows me to select which server to connect to. I have no problem with DNS over HTTPS as a technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Is Privoxy still a good go to for this stuff? Used to use it on everything back in the day, but haven't really used it as much in recent years.

[https://www.privoxy.org](https://www.privoxy.org)

<comment><USER34> Somewhat.

Privoxy can disable host requests, but for HTTPS traffic will no longer disable specific page elements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> One downside to this approach is that you still see where the banner was with an "address not found" block. I switched to uBlock origin some time ago which I prefer as 1) it collapses the ad blocks so you never realise they were there, and 2) it auto-updates the block lists for you.

<comment><USER36> I would say, that rather is an advantage, not a disadvantage. It is good to know after all that /something/ happened so you know that a page might be broken in some way instead of it failing silently behind your back.

<comment><USER35> That's true if you're prepared to update the file yourself all the time. In my experience there are a lot of URLs to maintain and I am ok with offloading that trust to a 3rd party like Easylist who will maintain the list for me.

Admittedly, I do occasionally have to turn the adblocker off to get a site to work, but this is maybe once a month.

This is the reason I haven't installed Pi-hole. I understand that a broken site may be because of the adblocker and can turn it off in my browser, but a less tech savvy user may not know this. And if they are on a Pi-hole network they won't know or be able to turn it off (I understand there is a whitelist but I believe this is only configured by an admin - could be wrong here).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I use something like this on a self maintained VPN server which I access on my phone and both reduces adverts and crucially reduces data usage.

I'd probably happily pay for a commercial VPN which had similar and better functionality.

<comment><USER38> try [https://ba.net/adblockvpn](https://ba.net/adblockvpn)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I prefer to just use Pi-hole, but you could use many of its lists via the host file as well. I use many of the ones listed here: [https://firebog.net](https://firebog.net)

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel this is also a good option in case you want to block ads network-wide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm wondering whether having a huge hosts file could create any performance issues since it needs to get parsed regularly I assume.

Does anybody have experience in this regard? What about a basic version with ~100 entries?

<comment><USER41> I have like 30,000 entries in mine and there is no performance issues.

[https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts](https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts)

<comment><USER40> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Next step is to do this at router level for the whole household at once.

<comment><USER43> Yup. pi-hole[1] works great for this and works for FireTV, AppleTV, Twitch and other Streaming services.

[1][https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I too use Steven Black's hosts file. I can tell when I forget to implement it by the sound of my cpu fan. That said I'm fighting with one big limitation, and that's the fact that I do understand that some sites are ad supported and I'd like to support those sites. I wish there was a way with the hosts method to enable ads for just those sites without also enabling all the tracking that goes with it.

<comment><USER45> There was a chrome plugin that allowed you to modify the hosts file from an extension window.

I wonder if there'd be something that allowed you to allow ads on the current page and just removed it from the hsots file.

<comment><USER46> My browser being able to modify network configuration files. Now there's something I don't want.

<comment><USER45> If you like that, you'll love the 'all_urls' permission which most apps request.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's an arms race.

If you block using a hosts file, the ads will be requested from an IP address, thus skipping a DNS lookup.

If certain IP addresses start getting blocked, they'll move to IPv6 and have an infinite dynamic supply, which are randomly picked as the web page is served.

It is an arms race.

Also: advertising ruins every medium it ever touches. There is no self policing or sense of restraint or any line that could be crossed leading to a feeling of shame.

<comment><USER48> It is an arms race but its worse that the progression you listed. Since the easy solution to ipv6 hosted ads is to just block ipv6 (plus anyone without ipv6 wouldn't see the ads), they just randomly generate div elements with random names making it impossible to distinquish the ads from real content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Blocking ads via DNS lists? How that different from adguard.com? Or more specifically AdGuard DNS

<comment><AUTHOR> It's simply another way to block ads. Not better nor worse. A mental and technical exercise that's all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> When I see things like this I think of the average user who may not be technically savy enough to implement this type of configuration. If Google blocks things like uBlock origin and ABP, how can we help less tech-savy users have an ad-free experience?

<comment><USER51> >how can we help less tech-savy users have an ad-free experience

I'd advocate for encouraging adoption of more flexible browsers, if it comes to that. Firefox is far from perfect (see Looking Glass), but for less tech- savvy users it's probably the best option (and you'll get better results than a hosts file or DNS server since the ad blocker can actually fix the page layout and modify elements, too!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I have this running on the VPS I run a a SOCKS proxy on and surf through. Works great. It really speeds up sites with annoying ads or ads with scripts that hang.

The annoying thing is that it blocks direct links on deal sites etc.

</comment><comment><USER52> Isn't that what a Pi-Hole does for you, just for the whole network, not just your the computer with the hosts file?

[https://pi-hole.net](https://pi-hole.net)

</comment><comment><USER53> "Host Flash is the ultimate Linux hosts file manager. "

[https://host-flash.com/](https://host-flash.com/)

</comment><comment><USER54> Anyway to use this in android?

I already use Firefox + ublock origin and it is enough for my browsing.

However I am looking for something to block ads also on apps.

<comment><USER55> Take a look at [https://blokada.org/](https://blokada.org/)

It blocks ads in news and other apps for me.

<comment><USER27> Has it been working fine for you? It quite often stops working for me and I have to restart the service.

DNS66[1] has been working great for me but for some reason it misses a few ads unlike Blokada which never missed a single ad for me.

[1] [https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66](https://github.com/julian- klode/dns66)

<comment><USER25> I've had to give up on both which is a pain for me. Reason being that for some reason no connections work when it's running. As soon as I disable it internet works again. Haven't bothered figuring out what the issue is yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> another to toss on the pile: [https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate](https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsgate)

</comment><comment><USER57> How can I make this work on macOS?

In my case: 10.14.2. Mojave

<comment><USER58> edit /etc/hosts

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This is essentially how ublock works

</comment><comment><USER60> Does it work for intrusive trackers too?</comment>


Meet the CamperForce, Amazon's Nomadic Retiree Army - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/meet-camperforce-amazons-nomadic-retiree-army/ <comment><USER2> Wow, what an awesome read.

This guy spent 40 years of his life going from janitor to branch manager at McDonalds.

He saved up 250k, and then Wells Fargo sold him an investment that (somehow) lost 100% of its value in 2008.

He and his partner then bought an RV and attempted to live off of $1,100 dollars in social security payments.

Which I thought sounded doable, but they apparently really like to work, so they now work entry level jobs at Amazon.

Color me confused and jaded.

It's an absolute shame that Wells Fargo conned this guy into an investment that took this guy's nest egg of 250k! I mean buyer beware and all, but the guy lost 40 years of savings!

There's no reason he should be working at Amazon right now, and neither should his partner who also lost 200k! They should be sitting on the beach enjoying their golden years, not begging for a factory floor job.

<comment><USER3> He had 250K invested and was expecting 4K a month in returns. That's nearly 20% interest year over year!

If you are expecting those kind of returns you can hardly be surprised when you lose _all_ your money.

We don't know if it was a con or a bad risky decision. Either way, it is a sad story but still.... if you get to that age and life/management experience and expect the above to reliably happen (regardless of what someone tells you) it's not a wonder when you wind up in poverty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great read, thanks for sharing it.</comment>