NSA can't trust 'brilliant' people, will automate sysadmins - <AUTHOR> http://privacysos.org/node/1165 <comment><USER2>
        The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the
        more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership
        and planning coterie. This must result in minimization
        of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an
        increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent
        system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased
        ability to hold onto power as the environment demands
        adaption.

Julian Assange is seeming more and more prescient every other day.

<comment><USER3> > Julian Assange is seeming more and more prescient every other day.

Quite true.

He was considered quite bold and respectable for all his work until the cables happened. As long as his leaks did not have anything to do with _back home_ you know. At least that's how it all seems to me.

<comment><USER4> Also the alleged rape really hasn't helped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _Before the change, "what we've done is we've put people in the loop of > transferring data, securing networks and doing things that machines are > probably better at doing," Alexander said._

Proving once again that the NSA has absolutely no fucking idea what it's doing at the absolute highest levels.

<comment><USER6> Maybe they could start automating those levels. It should be easier.

<comment><USER7> You thinking about bugzilla?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The NSA like the military relies on people to not question authority and blindly follow orders.

Unfortunately for them, as society becomes a bit more self-aware every decade, it's harder to find such people and they also throw away their best talent when questioning orders is unacceptable.

This is why I find it horribly ironic that there are military people now who are anonymously posting that they "didn't sign up to bomb syria" (and punish the chemical murder of 1000s of civilians). What exactly did they think they were signing up for? To pick and choose what orders they would follow? Does the person who sits at a desk in the military think they have better morals for not actually pushing the button that literally fires the missiles?

Imagine how moral the US would be if every government agency like the military, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the TSA had a draft instead of volunteers. They would actually have a consciousness instead of scandal after scandal because people would not just accept the system blindly.

<comment><USER9> Actually 'I was just following orders' is not a defence. It's every soldiers obligation to question the moral standing of their orders. An illegal order, such as being told to bomb a church/mosque/hospital is invalid and shouldn't be obeyed.

Obviously it's very hard to have the moral courage to accept being bradley manninged (because some orders come all the way from the top), but the obligation to question orders has definitely been established.

<comment><USER8> Right, so when the commander-in-chief orders Guantanamo closed, you leave it open.

Basically every single person in the military who serves at Guantanamo in any capacity is disobeying a direct, signed order by the commander-in-chief.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is hilarious? What's harder, doing things manually, or automating things in a way that the automation itself doesn't break, is self-healing, etc?

The kind of people that need to automate these sort of systems need to be even stronger systems programmers and administrators than the incumbent batch. Automation can be backdoored as well.

<comment><USER11> And this explains what's _really_ going to happen. The 90% of their sys-admins who've already morphed into dev-ops staff, are going to get officially re- classified as "not sys-admins" – and will continue to have unfettered access to the VMs, hypervisors, storage pools, hadoop clusters, and password databases that the analysts and management at the NSA use. (Only they'll invent some new rules, so it'll probably become a _double_ capital offense to embarrass the US government, the next Snowden-scale whistleblower will face getting assassinated _twice_…)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Twitter announced that they need to hire less talented people that are less productive. A spokeswoman said, that though they have the necessary funds to hire the best talent they can get, they just couldn't deal with that much productivity. They are kindly asking that good programmers and sysadmins stop sending in applications. A new interviewing process will be established specifically designed to identify competent and talented applicants in order to deny their application."

Aaaaand that wouldn't happen ever, unless that "company" is funded by your tax dollars. Enjoy.

<comment><USER13> The money that Twitter makes is the tax dollars.

All productivity and excellence is used now to fuel an organization which punishes those who are productive and excellent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > computer automated sysadmins.

Who will administer these 'computer automated sysadmins'? The entire matter reeks of nothing but bluster by a control freak overseeing a witch hunt. Further evidence that we should not assume the competence of intelligence agencies.

<comment><USER13> Fewer sysadmins compared to previously. And sysadmins with lesser political capability.

<comment><USER10> Yes but these sysadmins need to be stronger. The rationale given was not to have _fewer_ sysadmins but _dumber_ ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> By the way...this NBC admission of Snowden creating new profiles and impersonating high-ranking intelligence officials is proof positive that Snowden wasn't lying.

If he could create any profile and impersonate say Gen. Alexander...then it is easily conceivable that he could access anyone's records.

Not that we didn't know this already...

</comment><comment><USER16> I have 2 remarks : 1) I'm pretty sure either they are lying or they are going "blind", because an IT infrastructure project this big always fail on the first trial. 2) They are just borrowing time, with such a complex system to manage, the "computer" will get smarter and smarter. When it integrates Plato, the Snowden case will just be a footnote, the computer will directly kill the agency director for being so far from moral values.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is either a good thing, that the NSA will not be able to attract the type of talent to continue doing these types of activities forever.

Or it is a bad thing, that incompetent people will still be doing these activities - thereby making it more likely that their systems will be more easily compromised and the data end up in the wrong hands easier.

<comment><USER17> It is slightly boggling to imagine what the new sysadmin hiring criteria might be after these statements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is one flaw in the plan though. How are they going to automate the automation of the servers? If they can't trust people any more, they're going to have to find a way to automate a system administrator without the help of a system administrator (presumably another automated process).

The ridiculousness of this proves that no matter how many billions of dollars and expensive infrastructure you have at your fingertips, the people in charge aren't very smart. Automate a system administrator? Good luck replicating a bearded Unix loving man with a penchant for energy drinks who gets angry every time something breaks. As someone who works alongside sys admins, I feel as though I am allowed to say that.

Amaze us, NSA.

<comment><USER19> On the one hand, fewer sysadmins means fewer chances for a Snowden to turn up among them. On the other hand, it means, should a Snowden turn up among the residual personnel needed to implement the automation, he/she can do even more damage.

However, this is neither here nor there, since automation is hard, and Alexander the Geek can't make it happen simply by giving an order, despite his four stars. But promising it is a way for him to explain himself after getting caught with his pants down. See, Congress! We recognize we have a problem. But trust us, we have a plan! We have a solution! Not.

<comment><USER18> Exactly this. General Keith Alexander is basically saving his own skin here by publicly showing he has a plan because I can only assume those in higher places are not all too happy about the Snowden breach and as usual in Government, looking for someone to blame.

Sure, certain aspects can definitely be automated. But it's kind of the equivalent of using robots in your factor that run on batteries. If the battery goes dead in a robot, how does the robot replace its own battery if it's not even on? Presumably another robot, but it proves automation is very hard,

There will always be human error though. Humans will be programming whatever automation Alexander has planned and that automation will take years to refine and perfect before it's close to flawless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> if anyone has not seen Brazil, I recommend watching it. [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/)

</comment><comment><USER21> What could possibly go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER22> Their "problem" is easily solvable by pairing sysadmins up. Make sure every command or windows click is seen an authorized by another, maybe even an anonymous sysadmin at a different location. If one sysadmin "steals" secrets, the other sysadmin would be implicated, so they have a lot of reason to pay attention. Costs will increase, of course.

<comment><USER15> Costs will either increase, or collusion or both.

Imagine they double their headcount - just to get more leaks, because they have more people looking at the data.

<comment><USER23> You pair them randomly so as two co-conspirators can't arrange to work together. You make sure the ones who are paired don't trust each other. You tell them that they are expected to report _any_ suspicious behavior -- like someone mentioning the constitution -- and that they will be tested. You _do_ test them. They get paired with an incognito auditor whose job is to offhandedly mention that what they're doing is violating someone's rights. If they don't report him, they're disciplined.

Of course, all these things also make it hard to convince them that they're the good guys.

<comment><USER24> Makes me wonder if the NSA will routinely use entrapment as a technique to catch would-be conspirators. Sounds like the best environment to serve ones country…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hammer dropped on a toe.

Instead of investigating process and even validity of hammer use, promptly removing all toes.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've seen the brilliant comment repeated in 2-3 articles now. The assertion is that Snowden basically used su to become other (more privileged) users. One level of misdirection. How is this brilliant?

<comment><USER27> It's all relative. Ever seen Idiocracy?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The NSA can't trust 'brilliant' people huh? Worried that they might be acting against the NSA's best interest? _Weird!_ I can't possibly imagine how they feel! Nope, not at all! It's not like I have a secretive government agency stockpiling of much of communications as they can get their hands on that could one day be taken out of context and used against me or something. _Crazy!_

</comment><comment><USER28> If the Snowden leaks were a 12 on the damage scale of 1-10. What's it going to be when they flip the switch on the sysadmin factory factory and find themselves locked out of everything because of an off-by-one error?

</comment><comment><USER29> Idea: Yeah, let's just keep the top 10% and make them work 10x harder.

Reality: The most loyal are the least productive resulting in widespread dissatisfaction and even more leaks.

</comment><comment><USER30> It is very difficult to manipulate, misinform, and indoctrinate intelligent/skilled people who work with information and information systems.

<comment><USER31> How do you know this? If it is true, then why did it take so long to get the big leaks?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I rather read this to be a worrying signal that sysadmins are now expendable, and the NSA is happy to have an excuse to shed them.

</comment><comment><USER33> And who said the 'NoOps' fad was over? :)

</comment><comment><USER34> The start of Skynet. </sarcasm>

<comment><USER35> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_%28role- playing_game%2...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_%28role- playing_game%29)

The Computer serves as the game's principal antagonist, and fears a number of threats to its 'perfect' society, such as The Outdoors, mutants, and secret societies (especially Communists). To deal with these threats, The Computer employs Troubleshooters, whose job is to go out, find trouble, and shoot it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> brilliant: bright and radiant. Not a part of the dark side.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Smart people realise we're doing bad shit, so will resist it. Therefore, we can only hire unquestioning idiots."

This is why the government is now entirely run by unquestioning idiots.

</comment><comment><USER38> Machines are predictable and trustworthy; humans are shifty, fickle, and expect things like 'rights' and 'livable wages'.

First they came for the computer janitors, and I did not speak for I was not a computer janitor.</comment>


Show HN: Spotify – now playing information and playback control from menu bar - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/davicorreiajr/spotify-now-playing <comment><USER2> Electron for a system tray icon and a single page of UI...

It used to be that multiple video games and applications would fit in less than what this app consumes in terms of RAM.

<comment><USER3> The entirety of the Super Mario Bros video game was just 31kb, almost 20 times smaller than the total transfer needed to load the YCombinator home page, so I'd argue that's not a great heuristic for performance or efficiency, especially given that processor speed, network bandwidth, and most importantly storage has increased exponentially over time.

And conversely, it has never been easier for a single developer to quickly write complex applications that can be deployed to multiple operating systems at scale around the world. It's important to weigh the cost with the benefit.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple way to generate music with cellular automatons - <AUTHOR>

At Toronto Music Hack Day I built a simple, yet sleek grid based interface to generate music with cellular automatons. Tap on the grid to add more atoms.
http://tap-pad.herokuapp.com
It's rather beautiful as although the music is random sounding, it's actually 100% deterministic.
I made a web version and an iPad app. You can also share the state of the grid and share it via link:
http://tap-pad.herokuapp.com/661621
Code is all open-sourced on Github under MIT:
https://github.com/dmitric/tap-pad-web
https://github.com/dmitric/tap-pad-ios <comment><AUTHOR> links:

[http://tap-pad.herokuapp.com](http://tap-pad.herokuapp.com)

example grid:

[http://tap-pad.herokuapp.com/661621](http://tap-pad.herokuapp.com/661621)

code:

[https://github.com/dmitric/tap-pad-web](https://github.com/dmitric/tap-pad- web)

[https://github.com/dmitric/tap-pad-ios](https://github.com/dmitric/tap-pad- ios)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you document server installs - <AUTHOR> Good day HN,
I'm sure everyone here has set up many servers (or VPSs, VMs, etc) over the course of their work and/or side-projects/hobbies/personal rigs.  I do a little bit of both, and am struggling to find a consistent way to log or document the whole process.
What do you use to document these setups, specifically:

  * Versions of installed packages / method of installation
  * Config file changes
  * Setup commands/scripts run
  * Deployment commands
  * Custom scripts/changes
  * Order of changes
  * Information from vendors/maintainers covering niche cases/installation issues
 Especially if it's a non-trivial setup (or the first time you're doing it), how do you keep track of what the final working approach was, the order of installation, etc?
Typically, I use a wiki with lots of links, and copies of any custom scripts I made, but it's not a comprehensive solution, and possibly error-prone.
Bonus points if your system has a way to easily redo all the work you've done (puppet, chef?).
Thanks! <comment><USER2> > Typically, I use a wiki with lots of links, and copies of any custom scripts > I made, but it's not a comprehensive solution, and possibly error-prone.

I've done the same for far too many projects, both existing and green field, and always ran into the same issues:

\- manual sync (even if reporting is scripted) of every detail, info always ends up stale and often causes more issues from someone inevitably following it as a reference.

\- additional overhead and maintenance, tied closely to the point above.

\- stale / unaccessible links (file server accounts, etc...)

\- change history and supporting multiple versions / environments in parallel

I've come to the personal conclusion that it's easier and faster to bite the bullet and spend the time on your build and deployment steps, with the points you listed in mind.

With a Jenkins server, you could create a project that simply watches your current build directory and creates a new Build with its own Version Number, and a single archive as a Build Artifact containing your changes, including the current versions of your config files, required packages, setup scripts, and possibly a current snapshot of any relevant documentation.

This gives you visibility of exactly what was contained and possibly run (if your setup/update is scripted) for each deployment / update you perform.

You can build on this over time until it contains all the info you require about a particular snapshot of your stack.

Next, you can build a list of your servers (and environments) and track which Build from Jenkins you've installed to each.

(I believe Jenkins has plugins for that, but could be tracked elsewhere)</comment>


Ack 2.0 has been released - <AUTHOR> http://perlbuzz.com/2013/04/ack-20-has-been-released.html <comment><USER2> Anyone have a sense of how the new Ack 2.0 compares to The Silver Searcher[1] (aka Ag)? I've been using TSS for some time now and it's been completely awesome in both performance and functionality compared to Ack v1.

[1] <https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher>

<comment><USER3> I had never heard of The Silver Searcher. Thanks! A test search of a huge codebase (Firefox) took 38 seconds with ack, but only 17 with ag! After my page cache had been warmed up, ack then took 10 seconds and ag only took 3. That said, I am using ack 1.96, not ack 2.0.

      $ brew uninstall ack

<comment><AUTHOR> It's OK to have two similar tools in your toolbox. When you need the --output option, for example, you use ack. When you want crazy speed, you use ag.

You don't have to choose one over the other. That's why I changed the name from "betterthangrep.com" to "beyondgrep.com". There's no need to have a ranking of "I use this over that."

<comment><USER4> Ah, you Perl guys and your "there's more than one way to do it". :-) Disclaimer: I'm a Perl guy and I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> ack has been an indispensable tool in my workflow for a few years now. I use it several times a day to search code bases... most of the time, not even taking advantage of regexes or all of its many abilities. Just a basic keyword search is usually enough; the output looks great.

The feature I've wanted the most is the local project-specific .ackrc ability. I have some projects where I need to be able to ignore specific files/dirs; I think this feature will address that need.

<comment><USER6> I usually just open up sublime on a codebase to do some quick searches, you can jump straight to the file and see the results in context.

<comment><USER7> Editor integrations fail badly with big codebases though. I don't use sublime text, but I can't imagine getting it to index, say, the entire kernel (or the /frameworks subtree of an Android build, etc...) faster than a recursive grep will return.

That said, I don't use ack. I've tried it a few times and it looks great and works well, but honestly this particular task turns out not to be one where I demand polish and features. Really, all I want is grep.

<comment><USER8> me too, i've tried ack several times but i'm not stuck to it because i've always been able to find anything i was searching for with, tataaa : simple grep and locate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ack is wonderful example of tool use evolution. Before ack, I used grep to find stuff, but each use would frequently require additional options to exclude certain types of files, then coupled with a pipe to filter other stuff, etc, etc. After ack, everything is much simpler; just specify what you want. It has replaced most of my grep invocations. Honestly, if you work on the command line and use grep, you owe it to yourself to try ack. You (probably) won't look back.

</comment><comment><USER10> Vim users, don't forget the essential ack.vim: <http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2572>

<comment><USER11> Vim users, don't forget the included vimgrep. It greps your file. But the nice thing is, it puts the results in the quickfix window (where your compiler errors go, for example).

I keep a project log file in restructured text. My entry headers look like this:

      2013.03.17 Sunday, Set up base box
      </comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>====

When you filter that file with rst2html, your output file can have a table of contents, but not your source file where you probably spend more time.

Use vimgrep to find all your headers:

      :vimgrep /^20[0-9][0-9]/gj %

Nothing happens, but the result is in the quickfix window.

      :copen

And now you have a second window with entries like the following:

      log.rst|1559 col 1| 2013.03.17 Sunday, Set up base box
      log.rst|1624 col 1| 2013.03.14 Thursday, configured widgets

In the quickfix window, enter on any line and it brings you back to the main window, at that location.

      :help vimgrep
      :help quickfix
      :help copen
      :help cc
      :help cn

</comment><comment><USER12> Ack is a nice tool. I wrote a blog post about how to use it for ClojureScript within Emacs: [http://inclojurewetrust.blogspot.de/2013/01/searching-in- clo...](http://inclojurewetrust.blogspot.de/2013/01/searching-in-clojure-and- clojurescript.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent. I've added it to the to-do list of articles to put on beyondgrep.com

<https://github.com/petdance/beyondgrep/issues/12>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> We have a really big C++ codebase at work and I find codesearch[1] to be the best way to search through the code, although the UX is terrible compared to Ack/Ag. Another problem is that it's written in go; so hard to get builds for the AIX PPC machines. Faster than everything though -- running a complex regex against 2-3 million SLOC and getting an answer within a second is certainly worth something.

[1]: <http://code.google.com/p/codesearch/>

<comment><USER14> There's also cscope, which is ancient as the hills but still quite handy for navigating a codebase you're not completely familiar with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sadly this change broke every script I had which followed the old instructions for putting ack on a box:

        curl http://betterthangrep.com/ack-standalone > ~/bin/ack && chmod 0755 !#:3

Now gives a Nginx 302 text/html page. Yes, yes, I should have done curl -L, but those are the instructions they had pasted on the box.

In addition just changing the hostname

        curl http://beyondgrep.com/ack-standalone

just gives a 404.

<comment><AUTHOR> I put in a redirect from <http://betterthangrep.com/ack-standalone> to the new location, but it's temporary. I never intended for anyone to use that command line as ad hoc API, nor did I realize that people were scripting against it. :-/

So, sorry I broke it, and, I can't promise that URLs are going to stay where they are unless I explicitly say that I am promising that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sweet. I'm a complete ack convert - `ack 'some str' --no-haml` (which, in rails project roots, will ignore specific build folders because of my .ackrc file) is just so much easier and more readable than the grep equivalent, it's hard to go back.

</comment><comment><USER17> I couldn't do my job without ack. We have a code base with millions of lines of C/C++ and tons of PHP. I use ack every day to find code and files. I've been looking forward to 2.0 for a long time. Will try to help melt his server right now :)

</comment><comment><USER18> I stopped using ack because it opens the same files several times (strace it to see for yourself - I've seen version 1.94 open the same file 17 times) and has problematic performance on our a little higher latency setup (Xen + FC storage). ag does everything I need and has no such issues...

</comment><comment><USER19> I haven't used either one, but from reading the descriptions it sounds like ag has fewer features, for examples it doesn't have the --output option to tailor how results of matches are presented. On the other hand, it sounds like it should be faster.

</comment><comment><USER20> Can someone explain how Ack is better than "git grep"? Assuming, of course, you use git to manage your code.

I find "git grep" as fast as Ack and very flexible.

<comment><USER21> There is a large world beyond source code. Surely you've done some system administration or looked in logs?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd suggest that for most cases that are not source code that you stick with grep.

<comment><USER21> I'd suggest that for most of my cases that are not source code that I'll stick with ack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you prefer Python and don't want to have Perl around just for the sake of 'ack', check out 'pss' - a similar tool written in pure Python: <https://bitbucket.org/eliben/pss>

[sorry for the plug, but it's definitely relevant to the discussion]

<comment><USER23> Is it common these days not to have perl installed? I assumed it was still standard on UNIX systems.

I count 308 perl scripts in my /usr/bin.

<comment><USER22> Actually my initial motivation for developing pss was Windows. I had to use Windows at work at the time, and installing Perl just for the sake of ack was pain. ack also needs an additional module from CPAN (for console coloring), so double pain.

Python, OTOH, is always one of the first I install on every machine that doesn't have it :) pss requires no installation, no additional modules, just Python.</comment></comment></comment>


Why are you not using Design by Contract? - <AUTHOR> http://codeweavers.net/why-are-you-not-using-design-by-contract/

<comment><USER2> Design by contract is great, but if you want to go beyond the basics, you really need some form of language support. In the absence of inheritance, precondition and postcondition handling aren't too tough to deal with via preprocessors. But inheritance is much harder to handle, as are class and loop invariants, yet these are the very places where DBC really starts to shine.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree, but even just the basics can be a great addition. What I find odd is even just simple things such as pre or post conditions don't appear to be used widely, let alone cool features built into languages such as Eiffel or D.</comment></comment>


Anatomy of a World War I Artillery Barrage - <AUTHOR> https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/07/01/anatomy-of-a-world-war-i-artillery-barrage/ <comment><USER2> I've been shelled with 155mm shells. There is (or used to be) a bunker on Salisbury Plain where trainee artillery officers could experience it for themselves. It has very thick concrete, four foot thick windows and so on.

Even with all the protection it's terrifying. They drop the rounds a few yards in front of you. The noise is unbelievable, the shockwaves actually bend the concrete inward a little and the dummy target vehicles you can see get instantly shredded with shrapnel. Delay the fuse a little and the shell penetrates a few yards before exploding, leading to a strange effect where all the dust and stones jump off the ground as the shockwave traverses it. Make the fuse go early and you get an airburst that sprays red hot metal down in a 100 yard radius and rattles those windows with waves of shrapnel.

We were all jumpy for days. It just does that to you.

<comment><USER3> I was an artilleryman is the U.S. Army. We get the machine gun fired over us in a trench during basic training (like everyone else), but that sounds like so much more profound of an experience. I kind of wish we did that here.

That said, I was enlisted (NCO), not a commissioned officer. For all I know, they may do something like that for (to?) the officers at Fort Sill.

<comment><USER2> On that topic, artillery shells flying over you sound strange, like tearing a linen sail or sheet down the middle - no joke.

<comment><USER4> I was in an infantry exercise at JBLM where they were firing artillery from right next to our position, and I remember every tenth round or so would have a defect that made it go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzoooooommmm when it came out of the barrel.

<comment><USER2> Ah yes, the whistling round. On the 105mm Light Gun this was from small gaps in the copper jacket around the shell that whistled when spinning.

<comment><USER5> 120mm rocket artillery incoming near Talil. Felt like an earthquake. Was great fun at the time, now I think back and wow...

<comment><USER2> Oh to be young and carefree again :)

It does feel like an earthquake. The most powerful subwoofer I've ever heard doesn't come close to the teeth-scraping body-slamming whump of a near miss from large ordinance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
      Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
      Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
      And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
      Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
      But limped on, blood-shod.  All went lame; all blind;
      Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
      Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

      Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
      Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
      But someone still was yelling. out and stumbling
      And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.—
      Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
      As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

      In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
      He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

      If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
      Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
      And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
      His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
      If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
      Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
      Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
      Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
      My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
      To children ardent for some desperate glory,
      The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
      Pro patria mori.

_Dulce et Decorum Est_ , Wilfred Owen

<comment><USER7> One of the few poems that stuck with me from English in high school, the Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori translates as "it is sweet and honourable to die for ones country".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is no more eerie account of what it was like to be a foot soldier caught up in trench warfare than Arthur Guy Empey's book "Over the Top" (1917).

It is available free as a Kindle ebook: [https://www.amazon.com/Over-Top- Arthur-Guy-Empey-ebook/dp/B0...](https://www.amazon.com/Over-Top-Arthur-Guy- Empey-ebook/dp/B008478XB4/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital- text&ie=UTF8&qid=1467665338&sr=1-3&keywords=Over+the+top#navbar) (some reviews can be found here: [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1517707.Over_The_Top](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1517707.Over_The_Top))

Empey was an American who managed to get in the mix with the British soldiers before America entered the war. His account is based entirely on his own first-hand experiences. His last patrol depicts an utterly futile foray at night in which dozens of his comrades lost their lives and he (and I believe one another) survived. I am going from memory here on something I read quite a while back and so my summary may be imprecise. But anyone wanting to get a sense of the horrors of what it meant to fight in such battles will most certainly get it through this account.

The strange thing is that this became a runaway bestseller in America in 1917 and 1918. Far from recoiling at the horrors, the public chose to celebrate the heroism of the soldiers who put themselves in such incredible danger.

It is in any case a bone-chilling account to read this and all the more so because its style is almost detached and matter-of-fact, even clinical in describing one horror after another.

<comment><USER9> The posted article lacks substance, but I read "Over the Top" because of your comment. It is excellent. Thank you. I found my copy on archive.org[0].

I read it alongside "The Arms of Krupp"[1], and found the combination highly synergistic. The sensation of perspective is multiplied further if read with "All Quiet on the Western Front".

[0] [https://archive.org/details/overtopbyamerica00empe](https://archive.org/details/overtopbyamerica00empe)

[1] [https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24200511M/The_arms_of_Krupp_...](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL24200511M/The_arms_of_Krupp_1587-1968)

<comment> saiya-jin "All Quiet on the Western Front" \- the only book from cca 40 we were forced to read during high school classes that really consumed me - the horrors described, the progressive apathy to death all around and almost total randomness of survival... far from usual poetry. Still cannot comprehend such madness that was happening 100 years ago

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If this piques your interest at all I highly recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History where he did 6 parts and about 18 hours on WWI from a mostly military history perspective. He also did a shorter one on the eastern front in WWII.

<comment><USER11> Came here to say this. I learned _so much_ that I didn't previously know about WWI from HH. Not only the military history aspect, but the political and cultural context for a lot of it.

<comment><USER12> The Great War youtube channel is also great. They do at least one video a week, on what was happening 100 years ago, plus extras on notable people, questions from viewers, and other things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here is the aerial view of what a town looked like before and after almost a million shells were directed at it in WWI: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Passchen...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Passchendaele_aerial_view.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER14> In this context, about PTSD: "What if PTSD Is More Physical Than Psychological?"

        > A new study supports what a small group of military researchers
        > has suspected for decades: that modern warfare destroys the brain.

Cause: Brain injuries stemming from blast exposure.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd- is-m...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-more- physical-than-psychological.html)

<comment><USER15> I suppose a better synopsis would have been that there may be a set of injuries that result from physical trauma to the brain, that can be conflated with war-induced PTSD. But as people that suffer trauma without serious head injuries exhibit some of the same traits as those that are associated with PTSD, it's not really about PTSD in _general_ being physical (as in result of external physical trauma, as opposed to physical changes in the brain, which can often result from eg: depression "alone").

But it is certainly interesting that "just" being subject to such physical abuse could lead to conditions similar to that of PTSD.

<comment><USER14>
        > that suffer trauma without serious head injuries

You didn't read or you didn't understand the article.

The injuries they are talking about _are invisible unless you put the brain under a microsocope_.

<comment><USER15> I meant trauma in the sense of head injury/head trauma -- a concussion is usually first diagnosed by secondary effects, not by "looking at the brain" as far I am aware.

Perhaps I should've said "head trauma without visible/apparent injuries to the head". Sorry for the confusion. I only meant to contrast the micro-injuries that these new studies reference with the also real physical changes that often accompany "purely" psychological conditions.

<comment><USER14>
        > I meant trauma in the sense of head injury/head trauma

Yes? I linked an article with a specific subject and contents. I would expect replies to somehow relate to that (article).

I don't think it needs to be said that "PTSD" is not a specific condition but a word that collects a large variety of them. The article is quite clear in describing what it is about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just want to throw this in here for some more context:

 _" During The Somme, the British bombardment consisted of 1,537 guns firing over 1,500,000 shells over a period of 168 hours averaging 8,929 shells fired per minute."_

That is just... staggering. I can't find a source for it, but I remember some factoid stating that on average it took several hundred shells to kill one soldier. That's not to say they had to take several hundred hits, but that on average that's how many shells it took to rack up one kill.

(from: [http://www.tommy1418.com/wwi-facts--figures-- myths.html](http://www.tommy1418.com/wwi-facts--figures--myths.html))

*Edit for caps only

<comment><USER17> It seems like the purpose of a bombardment like that isn't to kill the soldiers outright, but to crush their advance and keep them out of your territory.

<comment><USER18> It is also due to the creeping barrage, where you would inch your artillery fire forward with your troops behind its shield as the enemy took cover during a barrage and therefore it stopped them from being able to gun down your troops.

"In late 1915 / early 1916, Commonwealth forces began developing a new form of barrage. Beginning close to their own lines, the 'creeping' barrage moved slowly forward, throwing up dirt clouds to obscure the infantry who advanced close behind. The barrage would reach the enemy lines and suppress as normal (by driving men into bunkers or more distant areas) but the attacking infantry would be close enough to storm these lines (once the barrage had crept further forward) before the enemy reacted. That was, at least, the theory."

From [http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/worldwar1/p/prcreepingb....](http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/worldwar1/p/prcreepingb.htm)

<comment><USER19> What could possibly go wrong? I know it's Wikepedia, but the concept that 10% casualties on your own side could be expected _when done correctly_ should be a clue that this is another crap WW1 technique. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_(artillery)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_\(artillery\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone know offhand how airburst shells were fused in those days? The only way that I can think that it could have been done, would be to have a very accurate timer detonate the shell. But then you have to know the flight time, and that would have changed whenever the gun was aimed at a different spot. Was the gun capable of setting the shell's timer automatically, based on it's firing angle? Did someone compensate for elevation difference? Or, was there a guy with a slide rule tweaking a knob on each shell just before firing?

<comment><USER21> In WWI the British used burning timers, which are quite inaccurate due to variable burn rates vs pressure and chemical composition. The Germans had mechanical timers. The battery command post would do the calculations from gun tables, tell the battery the fuse setting (twisting something in the fuse (nose) of the round), then observers would report back and it would be adjusted.

In late WWII the UK invented RF proximity fuses, first for AA then for surface.

Nowadays the guns talk to the shells, the shells run self tests, etc. They will be self aware before too long, a la Darkstar: [https://youtu.be/qjGRySVyTDk](https://youtu.be/qjGRySVyTDk)

<comment><USER22> One of the first large-scale uses of POZIT proximity fuses by US forces in WW- II was at Elsenborn Ridge[1] in late 1944. Prior to this, the commanders restricted their use for the fear that the Germans would find a dud and reverse-engineer it.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elsenborn_Ridge#Arti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Elsenborn_Ridge#Artillery_role)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> France is still digging up and disposing of tons of unexploded ordnance from WWI. About 900 tons a year, every year.

<comment><USER24> This is the so called red zone, here are some pictures about it: [http://imgur.com/gallery/CdxZM](http://imgur.com/gallery/CdxZM)

<comment><USER25> I wonder how many kids grow up in these areas thinking this is normal and the whole country isn't safe to play in.

<comment><USER26> As a kid I played in these areas while my dad was cutting wood. It was rather exciting to find a shell as these were rare compared to other pieces of metal. We were just told not to play with them.

I remember that one day we found a shell buried not that far from a fire that my dad had lit.

I was young so I can't certify that we were in a "red zone" but it was in the woods around Verdun so there's a high chance.

<comment><USER27> >It was rather exciting to find a shell as these were rare compared to other pieces of metal. We were just told not to play with them.

We were told about the same. Fortunately, we didn't have parents around during the day - USSR, all parents at work :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The article treats conditions along WWI front lines as static. They were not. The conditions in the trenches changed from one part of the war to another. Gas was not a thing during the entire war. And the germans and allied trenches were different from each other, with allied trenches being much more haphazard due to the insistence that they not be permanent. Artillery too underwent change over the years, with new and technologically interesting shell designs changing the experience on the ground.

xxxxxxxxxx

(Something is blocking me from replying more than twice an hour. I'm trying to reverse-engineer this system to see exactly what limits are being enforced, but for now I'll edit-in this comment that I had wanted to add to ternaryoperator's link/pic.)

A million, ten million, a hundred million ... there is a point at which you are just moving the same dirt back and forth without any difference. I'm more interested in the smaller stuff. You can push dirt around for months, but is the barbed wire actually cut? Destroying the little things is very much harder than leveling roads.

<comment><USER29> _" The article treats conditions along WWI front lines as static"_

I don't read that:

 _" On the opening day of the Somme on July 1, 1916, British guns hurled 250,000 high explosive and shrapnel shells towards German positions"_

That's phase one: throw lots of stuff in the hope to destroy their capability to fight. When you think that succeeded, have your infantry walk over and conquer their positions.

 _" During the beginning of the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, over 3,000 British guns and howitzers fired a "creeping barrage" on German positions"_

Throw lots of stuff to prevent their soldiers from killing your soldiers with their guns while your soldiers advance on their position.

 _" The Germans developed and perfected the "box barrage"_

Throw lots of stuff to prevent your enemy from being reinforced.

 _" The American St. Mihiel Offensive on September 12, 1918 was preceded in some areas by a seven-hour preparatory bombardment"_

Throw lots of stuff for ages to soften their defenses. Stop bombarding when your troops attack. Problem: they dig down deep, wait for the bombardment to end, and then get up and shoot your infantry while it still is exposed between trench lines.

 _" By the end of the war, most attacks by French, American, and British forces began with a swift but short artillery bombardment that massed thousands of guns on one small area, followed up almost immediately by a ground attack"_

Throw lots of stuff to force them to keep their heads down, then immediately have your infantry get up to them (= use artillery bombardments as covering fire)

That's a lot of evolution, partly driven by technological advances. For example, a creeping barrage requires the capability to drop stuff close to your own troops, while not hitting them. That requires good maps and explosives with reliable explosive force (so that one can be confident that shells will carry the desired distance). As another example, concentrated fire requires precision, too.

<comment><USER28> Static technology, which is something different than tactics or positions. The article does not do the subject of technological progression necessary justice. Many of the effects described as if true throughout the war, specifically the blast effects, changed radically with technology (think fragmentation rounds).

<comment><USER29> _" The article does not do the subject of technological progression necessary justice."_

If you had said that in the comment I responded to, I likely would not have reacted, but I think that's quite a different claim from _" The article treats conditions along WWI front lines as static"_

When you write a one-page article on a four year war involving millions of people, you can't do all its aspects justice, but not discussing something doesn't mean denying its existence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So many shells were fired that farmers are still digging up unexploded ones today. I saw a bunch of them at a corner of a farm field in Belgium pending pickup and it spooked me.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2015/08/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2015/08/13/the-bombs-beneath-us-unexploded-ordnance-linger-long-after- wars-are-over/)

<comment><USER31> Often referred to as the "iron harvest":

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

<comment><USER32> Yup, right there in the article vermontdevil linked to:

 _In the small farming towns of France and Belgium, undetonated World War I explosives that turn up during each year's spring planting and autumn plowing are known as the "iron harvest. "_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Imagine being a member of an attack force following a creeping barrage, especially before it was perfected and short-falling shells were expected to kill a significant fraction of your comrades. Willfully walking into that kind of hell simply blows my mind.

<comment><USER34> >Willfully walking into that kind of hell simply blows my mind. //

Walk or get shot for desertion, not sure how wilful it was. Yes, you may have signed up willingly before knowing the horror that awaited you, but still ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I must admit that after reading such horrifying words, the Sharing sentence look very weird :

"Enjoy what you just read? Share via social media using the buttons below."

</comment><comment><USER32> By coincidence, this video of the receiving end of a modern artillery barrage is near the top or /r/videos:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD- FM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM)

Obviously a video is nothing like physically being present, but might give some idea.

</comment><comment><USER36> The amazing thing to me, aside from the inhumanity of the war and weirdly anachronistic things like the French cavalry uniforms and tactics at the beginning of the war, was that shell shock/PTSD/etc. wasn't recognized as a real thing, instead the armies would execute soldiers for cowardice. At least many of those have been posthumously (and far later) pardoned, not that it really makes much difference.

<comment><USER34> >instead the armies would execute soldiers for cowardice //

Was it not a necessity (on the basis of "winning" the trench warfare)?

If you can go home to a nice feather bed and being looked after in a care home without even the appearance of an injury by presenting as having PTSD/shell- shock then the effect on moral and ability to force men to go over-the-top with the threat of capital punishment for desertion is going to be detrimental to the offensive capabilities. Here's me 6-inches deep in mud sitting on a firing step, thirsty and flea-bitten, nursing my shrapnel wound; there's Joe going home without a scratch on him??

Cowardice and PTSD/shell-shock probably present in similar ways on a battlefield too - I'm a huge coward, I'm not trying to suggest anyone had less honour than they did, just that I'd expect to be a gibbering wreck without any shell-shock.

With the tactics employed it looks like it was a numbers game, to play that game they couldn't afford compassion for the fighting men of either side.

<comment><USER37> Strangely it had no impact on the outcome. Marching millions of men 'over the top' to be mowed down by machine guns was pointless. Even though the tactic failed utterly, they kept doing it. Out of desperation? They executed a generation.

<comment><USER38> They didn't really understand what was happening. Keep in mind that 1914 was a different war -- there was maneuver and grand strategy elements there.

What had happened is that you had officers and political leaders fed on a steady diet of studying Napoleonic warfare. They earnestly believed that elan and offense would bring them to a decisive victory on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the British experience in the Boer War and other conflicts distracted from the hard lessons learned by the Americans from 1861-1865... rifles and railroads meant that victory didn't matter in modern war, only breaking down the enemy's ability to maintain the army.

The other thing was that while WW1 armies had many of the trappings of the modern era (machine guns, explosives, some vehicles, limited aircraft, railroads), they lacked good communications infrastructure. The order of battle was driven by a pre-defined, precisely timed plan. The guns fired at target X at time Y, and division Z needed to move as planned. If circumstances changed, they could not react. With shock tactics and other advances, armies were able to "win" territory at a tactical level -- but they couldn't exploit the victories in a meaningful way.

It is a war that should always be studied and talked about, because it aptly demonstrates the horror and futility of modern warfare without the overarching "Good vs. Evil" narrative in WW2 or the weird political calculus of other conflicts. Millions of lives were sacrificed for nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> submarine for Battlefield</comment>


Ask HN: What are your thoughts on suicide? - <AUTHOR>

When Aaron Swartz' passing was making it's rounds through HN, I noticed a STRONG conflict here in people's acceptance, or lack there-of, with regards to suicide.
I just read the article on the frontpage on the Buddhist monk confronting suicide culture in Japan, and had read previously about Tojimbo cliffs where many young Japanese men go to die, and felt a similar dissonance from the comments.
Having lost friends and family-of-friends to self-induced death, and having felt some dissonance about the acceptability of suicide as an idea or behavior, I thought that I would ask y'all.
How does HN feel about suicide? Irresponsible and irreverent waste of opportunity? final personal right and exertion of control over personal experience in a chaotic universe? disrespectful drag on human betterment? <comment><USER2> I think some people feel overwhelmed and trapped and suicide often seems like the only option. I don't think it's a waste of opportunity, but I think it's very sad that some people feel so stuck.

When Aaron died, I felt sad that I'd never see him again and that he wouldn't be around to fight things anymore, but I don't feel like it makes someone a bad person, I feel like maybe we should all do a better job of trying to understand where people are coming from and accept that there's always more going on that people share.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure what all the fuss is about re: a man's right to choose death.

At the risk of sounding a bit nihilistic, we are just organisms on a spinning rock in space and (I guess) our purpose is to propagate our DNA? What if your DNA is shit, though? I've got an anxiety issue I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Half of my days on this earth are spent in what can best be described as severe jet-lag due to anxiety-related sleep issues.

Because of this, I feel very little joy, have difficulty with a 9-5 job and my relationships suffer, big-time. Girls like me well enough, but I've chosen to stay single and not reproduce because I don't think anyone should have to go through what I've gone through. I fear passing my shit onto someone else.

On top of all that, the world we live in is just monstrously horrible. Most of the world's resources are held by a very, very small minority of the uber-rich and the rest of us are in pseudo-slavery to them. If a part of the world doesn't matter to this group, fuck it, let them die of ebola or whatever.

So getting back to the point, if I want to make a rational decision to kill myself, similar to my rational decision not to reproduce, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If my life doesn't bring me any joy and my presence is a net- negative to humanity, why _wouldn 't_ I do it?

I should note that I absolutely will not kill myself because I have family that would be devastated/scarred, including some young nephews and a niece. I won't do that to them. I've chosen to live it out and do whatever I can to minimize the pain.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think everyone has the right to suicide, and virtually nobody should do it. Exceptions being hopeless, painful, imminent death.

Don't do it, you might miss something.

<comment><USER5> Perfectly stated. I'd like to change word in your sentence though.

> Don't do it, you WILL miss something.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

This post wasn't in consideration of suicide myself, just interested in the dissonant thoughts on it here. There is probably a visibility bias in who would feel compelled to answer this question in the first place. There was a suicide recently at a Burning Man event in Utah that had spurred a lot of thought as well. The reactions were so widely varied and intensely personal, I found it intriguing.

I used to react with scorn towards suicide, as though the person had taken something from anyone that cared for them. I've relented from this attitude though. A few examples of the act (Hunter S Thompson and Socrates, in particular) made me consider it in a different light.</comment>


Ultrasound Haptic Technology Could Revolutionise Man-Machine Interaction - <AUTHOR> https://www.theengineer.co.uk/ultrasound-haptic-technology-could-revolutionise-man-machine-interaction/ <comment><USER2> The article this one links to has more information and a surprisingly in-depth video [https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/october-2013-online/res...](https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/october-2013-online/researchers- create-screen-you-can-feel-without-touching-it/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I always wondered whether ultrasound devices were not explored due to production/cost issues or for some other reason. Years ago (pre-iPhone) I wanted to do passive user recognition on a touchscreen music product because some Polish researchers showed it was possible to image fingerprints well enough for recognition with ultrasound sensors placed around the bezel. Why carry RFID or depend on BT or something external when you can do it internally without any configuration? Maybe someone knows more about actual manufacturing of ultrasound tech...

<comment><USER4> Qualcomm offer an ultrasonic fingerprint sensor/chip called Sense ID [https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/security/sense-...](https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/security/sense- id). There are rumours the Mi 5s will use it [http://www.gsmarena.com/leak_confirms_qualcomms_ultrasonic_f...](http://www.gsmarena.com/leak_confirms_qualcomms_ultrasonic_fingerprint_sensor_for_xiaomi_mi_5s-news-20522.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whatever happened to Google's "Project Soli", which did this with millimeter radar? Dev kits are supposed to be available in Fall 2016, so this should be out Real Soon Now.

[1] [https://atap.google.com/soli/](https://atap.google.com/soli/)

<comment><USER6> As I read it, that technology doesn't provide haptic feedback, it just tracks gestures.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. But in combination with this, you could have the best of both worlds - I suspect Soli would read a much finer level of detail than anything ultra sound would, but this should give the haptic feedback that Soli lacked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apart from the usecases mentioned in the article, this could have interesting applications in sterile environments such as operating theatres and clean- rooms. Another fairly obvious application is virtual and augmented reality. For more traditional computer set-ups I see it falling more into the Leap Motion camp where it might not add a lot of value.

</comment><comment><USER9> People are also working with sonar for tracking:

[http://fingerio.cs.washington.edu](http://fingerio.cs.washington.edu)

</comment><comment><USER10> Summary: "...[T]he technology uses a complex suite of algorithms and an array of ultrasound emitters to produce the sensation of touch. Critically, unlike other haptic control systems, the technology enables users to receive tactile feedback without needing to wear or touch anything physical, and has recently been awarded a patent for the innovation."

<comment><USER11> Surprised about the patent, ultrasound had a bazillion patents in the 90s. That said, in cars the impact on dogs was always a problem. Even if the base frequency didn't bother them, harmonic resonances in the passenger compartment would

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ultrasound haptic porn site in 3..2..1..</comment>


Do adult human brains renew their neurons? - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21740397-one-paper-says-yes-another-says-no-do-adult-human-brains-renew-their-neurons <comment><USER2> Say an old neuron dies. Could a 'replacement' neuron ensure continuity of the original 1000s of precise connections?

Assuming that it can't, how is it to compete with the other neurons? (There's a school of thought that neurons compete with other neurons for resources by making useful connections.)

<comment><USER3> Well, no, of course not- when a neuron dies, the information encoded in it's connections is lost. [1]

But replicating the original connections isn't necessary, and certainly not necessary for the neuron to "compete." For example, say an old corporation dies, e.g. Microsoft [2]. Could a new corporation replicate the 1000s of precise products, services, and contracts of the original? Not at all. But replacement corporation could find _new_ things to offer, potentially taking advantage of the economic shortfalls and new demands precipitated by the demise of Microsoft. Eventually the economy returns to full efficiency, though in a slightly different form than before. And just so with neurons- the information passed through the neuron that died will now be in demand by neurons downstream, and this demand can be fulfilled by new connections by the new neuron (or new connections from old neurons, or simply not.) But the information may come from different places, or have slightly different semantic value, or other differences. [3] Brains, like economies, change, and are good at changing gracefully.

[1] At least, as far as we know- with glial cell participation and functional viral capsids and whatever else is going on, anything is possible, I guess.

[2] Example chosen without malice. Honest!

[3] All assuming the competition model of neural organization. Which is a plausible model last I checked, but see [1].

<comment><USER4> Except corporations don't really die that way. Even if the parent organization dies (goes bankrupt say), the children organizations normally survive with different ownership. So as long as a product or service has a market it won't really go away. A replacement would have to be in place first to kill the obsolete product or service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More relevant: Does it matter if human brains renew their neurons?

We know that there is lots of redundant networks and plasticity, so if one cell goes down does it matter whether the gap gets filled by and old vs. new cell?

With 100 billion neurons we seem fine with what we have. The bigger question seems to be how to protect these 100 billion cells from degenerating.

<comment><USER6> Frankly, we have a rather vague idea whether the networks are redundant, and how well spare capacity can be reused to amend a problem in another part of the brain.

Having a known ability to rebuild neural pathways would be important.

<comment><USER7> Mind you, this book is 10+ years old but that's not exactly the impression I got from it. That is, the brain __is plastic__ and __does__ have a high capacity for "re-configuring" itself. The story of the woman who was born with only one hemisphere of here brain comes to mind. There are other examples as well in the book.

"The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science"

[https://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself- Frontiers/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Brain-That-Changes-Itself- Frontiers/dp/0143113100)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Question: Are there any other cells in the body that are not, over time, replaced?

Might it be possible that some brains have the ability to generate new neurons, while others do not? Couldn't it be possible that evolution created such situations?

<comment><USER8> > Are there any other cells in the body that are not, over time, replaced?

Sure. For instance, female ova. The stock is limited.

> Might it be possible that some brains have the ability to generate new > neurons, while others do not?

The former is obviously the case for rodents at least. Could it differ within the species? I can't see why not, in principle.

> Couldn't it be possible that evolution created such situations?

I imagine it's more about gradual loss of function. For example, in larger brains it's progressively harder (and less probable) to transport the neuroblast to the area where its growth would be beneficial for the brain at large. Thus, eventually adult neurogenesis ceased to increase fitness in large mammals, became effectively an atavism, and mutation load disabled some relevant genes, but it still could hang on a few pathways that either work or do net depending on specific alleles present in the population.</comment></comment>


NYC bus drivers on strike - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/nyregion/new-york-school-bus-drivers-go-on-strike.html?hp

<comment><USER2> It's actually NYC School bus drivers not just "bus drivers".</comment>


Railway Oriented Programming - <AUTHOR> http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/rop/

<comment><USER2> Thinking in terms of railways just made every monad tutorial I've tried to puzzle my way through instantly click in my mind. I/O monads? They're just sugar to help you maintain a parallel railway track of accumulated I/O side effects, while still thinking in terms of your primary track and what it emits!

If you're confused at all about monads, you're a visual learner, and you're tired of Yet Another Monad Tutorial, the slide deck in this link should be absolutely mandatory viewing. It's one of those things that is just the perfect mix of conciseness and humor, and I'm probably going to look back on this as "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Functional Programming."

<comment><USER3> Totally on track, but as a tiny nit: "do"-notation is syntax sugar, but the IO monad is the rail and the rail-building operations themselves!

<comment><USER2> "On track" \- I see what you did there. Absolutely correct, "sugar" was the wrong word to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another railway oriented article I enjoyed when it was on HN: [http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/recipe- part2/](http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/recipe-part2/)

<comment><USER5> I enjoyed this one: [http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/property-based- testin...](http://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/property-based-testing-2)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is an excellent notation. I commend the author and will be using the metaphor myself.</comment>


The streaming build system - <AUTHOR> http://gulpjs.com/

<comment><USER2> Gulp is an interesting idea, but I'm skeptical of its long-term viability. As Wintamute said in another thread, large projects have a lot of needs, and streaming isn't enough for all (most?) of them. Gulp's creators were pretty adamant about not supporting other use cases when this came up on Twitter. [1]

Another issue with Gulp is that it's highly concurrent. Although that seems like a nice idea for speed, I suspect it will lead to a lot of hard-to-write and hard-to-debug edge cases. I've already heard reports of people getting strange behavior from their Gulpfiles [2].

At this point, I'd take a "wait and see" approach with Gulp unless you like playing with build tools or if you really need its focus on speed. If you're looking for a good build tool for that lets you "just run JavaScript," I'd check out Jake [3] instead. And of course, Grunt [4] is the current leader for JS builds, thanks to its immense plugin library.

If you're interested in a more in-depth review of Gulp, I have one here: [5]

[1] The Twitter thread: [https://twitter.com/funkytek/status/423762923421302784](https://twitter.com/funkytek/status/423762923421302784)

[2] Somebody runs into strange behavior from Gulp: [http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/1v4tez/bottom_li...](http://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/1v4tez/bottom_line_right_now_gulp_is_too_focused_on_its/cep25ac)

[3] Jake: [https://github.com/mde/jake](https://github.com/mde/jake)

[4] Grunt: [http://gruntjs.com/](http://gruntjs.com/)

[5] My Gulp review: [http://www.letscodejavascript.com/v3/comments/lab/1#comment-...](http://www.letscodejavascript.com/v3/comments/lab/1#comment-1197581116)

</comment><comment><USER3> Developers seem to be separated into two camps, those that want scripting in their build system and those that work on large projects.

<comment><USER4> I'm a bit curious, why would those goals be at odds? Is there a specific reason build systems like this don't scale well? I'm genuinely curious, not having had much experience with larger projects.

I'm not certain how use of a "proper scripting language" is much different than using automake, cmake, ant / maven ... in what ways are these necessarily different from something like gulp.js, other than syntax? Does the introduction of extra language features have a negative impact in scalability implicitly?

<comment><USER5> In a large complex project build scripts tend to take on many tasks, and some of them will not necessarily fit into the pattern of taking in a stream of file globs, modifying them and piping them on into the next task. For example your script might manage a Git repo, deploy an app to Heroku, rsync some files somewhere, run some tests in a headless browser etc. So a build system that's optimised around streams, and one that you have to script by hand, might be very well suited for small streamlined projects but once things get varied and complex it might better be better to define your tasks via configuration instead of code, i.e. Grunt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Check out this article for a comparison with Grunt and npm run.

[http://blog.ponyfoo.com/2014/01/09/gulp-grunt- whatever](http://blog.ponyfoo.com/2014/01/09/gulp-grunt-whatever)

</comment><comment><USER7> it reminds me of grunt, with a couple of plugins, or I didn't get the point.

<comment><USER8> Yes, Gulp performs the same tasks as grunt. However I switched to gulp after trying it because:

Gulp's simpler - my old 47 line grunt file became a 23 line gulp file.

Also you don't expose useless targets, eg in grunt I have 'grunt less', but I have to tell people not to run that task , as I also use auto prefixer and can't make grunt less automatically run auto prefixer - if they run 'grunt less', they'll produce unusable code.

There are other reasons too - gulp was developed after grunt, so it does some things similarly and other things much differently [http://slid.es/contra/gulp](http://slid.es/contra/gulp)</comment></comment>


Should Jack Dorsey and PayPal Worry About Clinkle? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/video/should-jack-dorsey-and-paypal-worry-about-clinkle-0KjfyNrwQF~iQT6KJ8W7FQ.html

<comment><USER2> Well, this case study has been played out so many times. They are setting expectations so high with these ads, that they are not going to leave up to the expectation off the bat. This is what google glass did, color also did this and hired some very popular people and said they would be bigger than facebook.</comment>


A guide to analyzing Python performance - <AUTHOR> http://www.huyng.com/posts/python-performance-analysis/

<comment><USER2> This guide is a nice start, but it misses the easiest way to analyze Python performance -- using the %time, %timeit and %prun magic commands in IPython, the better python command line interface (and which also has a killer web notebook interface).

The line and memory profiler modules he mentions can be installed as IPython extensions, too, and you don't even have to modify your code with decorators to make them work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good. Having spent months (a while back) analyzing where memory leaks were occurring in a fairly big code base I can say that it is no fun without good tools. In that case the issue was that the underlying homegrown library was based heavily on SQLAlchemy. Our SQLA objects referenced each other and when we freed the session, they were not decoupled automatically.

Also beware crappy C extensions. After much debugging I found a quad tree implementation that leaked like a sieve. From what I understand these tools will not help with that, though it is rare.

<comment><USER4> >Also beware crappy C extensions. After much debugging I found a quad tree implementation that leaked like a sieve. From what I understand these tools will not help with that, though it is rare.

As someone who has had to find and resolve memory issues with C extensions, I would suggest using Valgrind [0]. It is not a python tool, but (after compiling Python with to play nice with memory debuggers), it works well for debugging memory in C-extension. It basicly runs your program in a VM, where it monitors memory access and reports leaks and other potential errors (such using unitialized, unallocated or deallocated memory) along with a stack trace.

[0] [http://valgrind.org/](http://valgrind.org/)

<comment><USER3> Yup. Valgrind is the bees knees when it comes to debugging any C program. I do not remember if I used it or not for this particular purpose, but it definitely would have helped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is also the nice CProfile [0] that comes with the Python Standard Library. It does more or less what the mentioned line profile does, with the bonus that you don't have to install another package.

[http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/profile.html](http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/profile.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> There is also Guppy/Heapy, which I like in particular because you can spawn a monitor that you can connect to externally. Sadly the docs aren't very complete.</comment>


Zuckerberg: Non-Evil Non-Genius? - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/zuckerberg-non-evil-non-genius <comment><USER2> I'm not a big Facebook fan by any means, but anyone who legit thinks Zuck is evil is being ridiculous. The kid is 26 years old, running a multi-billion dollar company. Like the article says, he was just a hacker trying to make something cool. He's not a business guy, he's not a marketing guy, he's just a hacker who has been quickly catapulted into the limelight and trying to figure out how to run a huge company. When he makes statements that upset people or does something you don't like, it's not out of malice, it's likely out of not knowing what else to do. I consider myself a pretty smart, capable, and savvy individual, but if I had a billion dollar company by 2013, I probably would be clueless. The only thing genius I see in him is his ability to adapt and continue to push the company forward and retain his CEO position. I'm surprised he's not been forced out and been able to remain on the top despite Facebook being heavily invested in.

</comment><comment><USER3> That article was an _extremely_ roundabout way of explaining Metcalfe's Law.</comment>


A website that lets you browse 80s TV shows - <AUTHOR> https://www.my80stv.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> You don't have to hit the top of the TV to get it to work.</comment>


Case Study - Adding Flock Multiplayer to an Android Game - <AUTHOR> http://www.flockengine.com/blog/2010/06/case-study-adding-flock-multiplayer-to-an-existing-game

<comment><USER2> Seems more like an ad then a case study. No technical details of adding the multiplayer either so I would call BS on the title too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback.

It's kind of focussed on the players/connections during the first two weeks after release and how many of them found opponents, how the dev saw an increase in ad revenue, etc. I think many developers are curious if players find opponents because there are few users online in the beginning, and I wanted to address this.

This multiplayer engine is the project/startup I'm working on since months, just recently having started private beta. I'd love to get more feedback and additional beta testers. Perhaps I'm too biased to write such a post. Next time I write a post I'll try to go more in depth on the technical side. What kind of details would you be interested in?

Edit: I've updated the title with "Flock" to better reflect what it is about.</comment></comment>


The most secure password - <AUTHOR> https://mostsecure.pw/ <comment><USER2> There's not much point in complaining about joke websites (it presents just a single password that is always the same) like this existing, simply because statistically it is expected that some people will build them for a laugh. They are harmful though, because some people enjoy spreading fake advice like this; and often they will gain traction.

For the more ethically inclined amongst us the best course of action is probably to add this 'password' to some of the lists of common passwords out there, to help password strength utilities to filter it out on the level of 'correct horse battery staple' — an excellent password in itself, but used as an oft quoted example and thus not suitable for actual use.

<comment><USER3> perhaps a better way to make this joke is to randomly generate a strong password every time the page is loaded-- who's going to look at it more than once anyway?

<comment><USER4> Maybe have it generate a new password seeded by a browser fingerprint. That way it _looks_ like the joke works but it doesn't do any damage.

<comment><USER5> Which would basically be a password that is randomly generated from very poor quality entropy, giving almost as much insecurity as the current example, while fooling even more people (because it changes). Nice idea.

<comment><USER6> Generate a real strong password and store it in a cookie then.

Or just don't and leave it as a joke the way it is, I think we're over- engineering this.

That being said there's an actual password generator "feature" in duckduckgo for some reason: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!password&t=ffab&ia=answer](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=!password&t=ffab&ia=answer)

I can't really imagine why anybody would want to use that though...

<comment><USER7> what's wrong with using a password generator? or are you just saying that having it built into a search engine is pointless?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it'd be even better if they delved into the math behind why this password is so secure. It should then become apparent that the site is satire, and that the site doesn't randomly generate secure passwords.

Bonus points to only have the password below-the-fold so that those who aren't going to read the explanation will be less likely to copy, paste, and carry on.

Ideally, as mentioned in an earlier comment, the password could be seeded through the browser's fingerprint to allow the joke to remain (it'll be the same password upon refreshing) but still won't be as damaging for those who don't get the joke (it's still not cryptographically secure).

<comment><USER9> Those are some very good points. I was also thinking "oh someone computed the least likely password based on leaks, that's cool!" but it's just a static page with some garbage in a box...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just checked it using

[https://www.ssllabs.com](https://www.ssllabs.com)

And it gets a grade of A.

So that is definitely the password I'm going to use from now on!

Oh, and here's a useful function:

/* Returns a random integer that was determined by a fair roll of a dice. */

function randomInt() { return 4; }

<comment><USER11> That's way more efficient than a Mersenne Twister, and just as random!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's a good joke, but a somewhat dangerous one.

The general principle is that humor does not scale. With enough users, the probability that a joke will be misinterpreted approaches 1.

I'm reminded of Al Franken's latest book where he talks about having to run what he says through the DeHumorizer now that he's a politician.

</comment><comment><USER13> I laughed.

But then I thought about the users who don't know any better and might stumble onto this site. They aren't stupid. They just don't know any better, and a lot of education attempts can go over their heads. Worse yet, sites with poor password policies (seemingly every online banking site in existence, workplaces, sites with 16 character maximums, etc.) _reinforce_ bad practices in their minds, while attempts at explaining the problems are forgotten. I'd probably explicitly note that it's a joke, especially if someone tries to copy the password. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> Is this a joke? Because this is __already __added to password crack dictionaries now...

If it is a joke, then they need something to indicate that, and very blatantly at that. Because there's a great deal of people who'd see that and not give it a second thought to use it.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't know about all of you, but I'm going to use H4!b5at+kWls-8yh4Guq for my password everywhere. No way any of you will be able to crack it!

</comment><comment><USER16> Even if this site was not a joke, I wouldn't trust an online password generator, especially if the pass is generated on the backend instead of the client. A quick Google for 'password generator' yields hundreds of these sites which are more than likely run by the same outfit and are possibly logging the passes into a database to make cracking various accounts easier.

There's a few PW generators which run on the client only and don't send any requests to third parties, and I use them sometimes. They are typically very JS heavy and use different seeds to generate sufficient entropy, like client fingerprint, mouse co-ordinates, timezone, etc

<comment><USER17> If I'm not mistaken, using a Mersenne Twister in a secure application is a really bad idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is irresponsible. Some developer's aunt will see this on facebook and actually use it.

<comment><USER10> I think that is unlikely.

Much more likely: a manager will issue a corporate directive that everyone must begin using this password at once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> They typed in hunter2, but all I see is * * * * * * *.

<comment><USER20> classic

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here is what I use (notice that I omit zero and the letter O):

$ ./LinPass.sh luser

xTJ2B2X3

$ ./LinPass.sh luser

JzILD3qd

$ ./LinPass.sh luser

IzlXki81

$ cat LinPass.sh

#!/bin/bash

id "${1}" > /dev/null

if [[ $? -ne 0 || -z "${1}" ]]

then echo -e "Usage: $0 logname [pw]\n\treset logname's pw & force chg"

         exit

fi

if [[ -z "${2}" ]]

then while [[ $pw != [A-NP-Za-np-z]* ]] || # Begins with a letter

               [[ $pw != *[1-9]* ]] ||           # Has a number

               [[ $pw == *[^A-NP-Za-np-z1-9]* ]] # Has nothing else

         do pw=$(openssl rand -base64 6)         # Safe random source

         done

else pw="${2}"

fi

#echo "${pw}" | passwd --stdin "${1}"

#chage -d 0 "${1}"

echo "${pw}"

#[http://brandonhutchinson.com/wiki/Linux_Password_Policy](http://brandonhutchinson.com/wiki/Linux_Password_Policy) #chage -m 7 -M 90 -W 14 hutchib; #chage -M 85 -W 5 -I 5 "${1}"

</comment><comment><USER22> Unamused. If anything, ambiguous characters should have been excluded. It's a very small reduction of keyspace in exchange for not entering the wrong passwords because of glyph similarities.

Either you're expected to remember these 20-character monstrosities (which is going to be beyond the abilities of most people with 5+ accounts), or more likely you're going to be reading them from a password manager.

Being ISO-compliant is all well and good, but it's been shown many, many times that making password restrictions this extreme causes more problems than it solves.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is an absolutely terrible idea. At least randomly generate a new password every time you visit the page.

Any internet noob searching for the most secure password might actually use it.

<comment><USER24> If it was different every time you visited, how could you retrieve your password if you forgot it?

<comment><USER25> Lmao, yes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think this is brilliant. Culling the herd.

</comment><comment><USER27> ... and then there are stupid websites like Baidu which limit your password to 16 characters.

</comment><comment><USER28> Those names doesn't exist. So, it's really a joke

</comment><comment><USER29> this one is better: [https://passweird.com/](https://passweird.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> No spaces? Not secure enough. ( :p )

<comment><USER31> They should allow emoji and non-breaking spaces in passwords.

<comment><USER10> Please don't use emoji in passwords until UTF-128 comes out.

Half of its code points (2 ^ 64) will be characters whose glyphs are every possible combination of 8x8 bit images. That way you can make monochrome graphics simply with rows and rows of adjacent characters in the enormous sized UTF-128 font.

And imagine how many emojis there will be? There would more than one emoji for every human who has ever lived.

In short, we'll have really safe passwords using characters from UTF-128. So be patient. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> H4!b5at+kWls-8yh4Guq it is then!

<comment><USER33> 0118 999 881 999 119 7253

<comment><USER34> PolygonPlywoodBrimNibbleUndertow,UnderrateFaxCliqueBribeUnhappily4

EFF Diceware FTW. >128 bits of entropy there. Has uppercase, lowercase, a number, and a symbol to satisfy misguided password strength rules. Being a passphrase it's much more memorable than simple passwords. Clearly this passphrase is the best.

<comment><USER9> I'd rather append 0A! to passphrases to satisfy silly requirements instead of capitalizing Every Single Word (impossible to type at speed) and inserting a symbol at a random place. This looks a little troubador-sy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Accounting software, alternatives to Quickbooks - <AUTHOR>

Quickbooks is driving me nuts. The online version of the software only works with IE and I got bring up my VM just for that. It doesn't connect to my bank half the time. The service goes down at least once a week for maintenance. How do you'll do accounting? Are there any alternatives?<p>The reason I choose quickbooks was cost. From what I understand it cost a lot more to hire someone but after three weeks with the program I'll have to reconsider that. <comment><USER2> This topic comes up here every now and again. Here's the most recent instance: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=317131>

The quick and dirty list via ryanfelton:

<http://liteaccounting.com/>

<http://gobootstrap.com/>

<http://www.netbooks.com/>

<http://www.freeagentcentral.com/>

<http://www.clarityaccounting.com/>

Also, you might look into <http://www.lessaccounting.com>.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank You.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> <http://corduroysite.com/></comment>


Ideas are cheap, development easy, so why aren't we rich? - <AUTHOR> http://kineticac.posterous.com/ideas-are-cheap-development-easy-so-why-arent

<comment><USER2> I find this to be a confusing article. So, I couldn't resist to spend "10 minutes" to point these mistakes:

 _"10 minutes to come up with something amazing"_

It's impossible to think of something amazing in 10 minutes.

 _"We aren't rich because we have cheap ideas, or can develop easily, we are rich because we have friends and support. "_

This is conflicting to the title of the article and in any message attempted to be addressed.

 _"We will never succeed with selfless promotion, so don't do it!"_

Who said a startup is about self promotion? If you are doing a startup for that, you are doing it already for a wrong reason. Of course you can be proud but the difficulties will really keep you rather silent and in need for focus on the real issues.

 _"Build something fun, not serious at all, that has no tool or function that people can use."_

the world would be a big Disneyland if everything built is not serious, fun and had no function whatsoever!

 _"But if you have something great, make it sound like it's for the masses."_

what do you consider great? and since when great things are targeted for the masses. Probably the best "toys" are exclusive to those with more money.

 _"Otherwise, if you have no crazy educational background, awards, job positions at big companies, nobody takes you seriously."_

Again, expecting approval is the wrong way to go. Feedback is good, but if you are in need of approval to go after something, it's probably because you are not ready yet (lack of desire, lack of expertise or belief in your abilities etc).

 _"Development is pretty easy as well"_

since when? If you are not building something new yes it probably is. But then you'll probably wont be a startup.

Also, the article began saying he will not share experience and the article is full of "advice" derived from personal experience, which may not complete yet, therefore there will be wrong conclusions that are not helpful for most. The only thing I somewhat agree is:

 _"Don't go out to places like Hackernews, TechCrunch, Mashable, etc hoping to pitch your idea."_

Of course you should know your audience and what you are building.

If ideas were cheap and everyone was able to think of something "amazing" the article wouldn't be full of confusion.

 _"This isn't an article about my experience"_

There are many other mistakes. But to conclude I'll just say that the author began saying that it's not about his experience when the whole article is based on them, from which someone can see that these are current/already expired point of views which will change accordingly if more experience is gained.

Yes, ideas are cheap judging from the whole article. Otherwise, the article would be filled with correct ideas.

Continuing flow of ideas and execution is what is hard.

<comment><USER3> "It's impossible to think of something amazing in 10 minutes."

I would beg to differ. Think about what you are saying for < 10 minutes and it might come to you.

"Software is easy. Since when? If you are not building something new yes it probably is. But then you'll probably wont be a startup."

Creating a rough prototype isn't that hard, if you think it is you are doing it wrong. Getting that prototype in front of real users isn't hard either, in fact if you use modern frameworks it will likely be as good as lots of other software out there. Creating great software is extremely difficult, but I know software companies making an absolute killing with hacky interfaces, no testing and poor qa.

My take: Ideas aren't hard at all. Neither is building a product. Almost no one does the necessary steps (e.g. steve blanks process) to get their product right, which boilds down to heaps of face-time meetings with the target market to truly understand their problems.

<comment><USER4> If you have found a _new_ way to tackle a problem, then, by definition, _there are no frameworks for you_.

<comment><USER5> I think you are mixing up problem and tools.

OP was probably thinking of something like web frameworks that help you realize your idea for a web-based app..

If you have a fundamentally different approach for developing web-based apps, you might have to start from the scratch, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article says: "any competent developer out there can make basically anything".

He really should read Software is Hard: <http://www.gamearchitect.net/Articles/SoftwareIsHard.html>

Also, while ideas are cheap, that does not mean that all ideas are lucrative or practical, and lots of people are not able to come up with product ideas or be able to judge the feasibility of an idea.

Lastly, there are actually a lot of people making a living in this virtual economy based off their ideas.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. It's easy to make anything. It's hard to make something great.

Any developer can make a crappy product with no finish and no market fit. It's a lot harder to pull off something that large numbers of users love and get excited about, and even harder to make something they're willing to pay good money for.

I'll grant the author that some niches are more easily served because they have basically no software available, so in those cases even bad software is better than nothing, but those niches are not so easy to find, and even in those cases, figuring out what software to build (rather than copying and extending someone else's offering) is pretty hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel we _are_ rich. You don't have to launch a Google or Microsoft to be rich. Launch a small niche product, get a few customers, earn enough to live a typical western lifestyle. That's enough for me to feel rich.

</comment><comment><USER9> I will probably get downvoted for not adding anything but I found this article really worthwhile and interesting. I think the problem I have is supporting the idea and the development process both financially and motivationally. Then once you have the product where do you go next?

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you working on the projects with someone else? I feel like one of the biggest motivators are teammates or a client who's excited about the product. Someone to work with you on something definitely makes things a lot more exciting for many reasons.

1\. Check and balances, they help you rationalize and keep you in check as an outside entity. This makes you confident that at least one other person truly believes in this project 2\. Excitement is inherently contagious 3\. More ideas, more resources, faster development 4\. Fun to hang out with

The financial and the next part, I have no clue, but I do know there is no golden rule that applies to every situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I also found this article confusing. The title seemed to hold some promise but the arguments are random and not well thought. The author seems to say that those who make it and do get rich do so because they have the right pedigree-- right school, right connections etc. Nothing could be further from the truth than this. If you make something people find useful, they don't care what college you went to. Conversely if you have the right pedigree--Harvard CS, Stanford MBA, previously successful startup and make something no one wants, they won't use it because of your background. There are examples aplenty!

</comment><comment><USER11> Cheap ideas and easy development translate directly into low barriers to entry -- if anything these are _obstacles_ to getting rich, not gateways.

</comment><comment><USER12> The TL;DR nutshell: Appropriate sales & marketing FTW.

</comment><comment><USER13> Answer: because cheap ideas and easy development don't make money!

</comment><comment><USER14> We are, but like the future, it isn't evenly distributed yet.

</comment><comment><USER15> plenty o ideas along with easy cheap dev just make for mass experimentation, eventually you'll hit something that really sticks

we do far more time manifesting stuff then really working from a core need in the first place</comment>


Ask HN: Where would an ambitious techie emigrate to? - <AUTHOR>

Hey there HN.
Here is my predicament - I am very ambitious and that is why I quit job at previous employer - the company wasn't nearly hungry and ambitious enough for my tastes. It was amongst regional leaders, however it lacked any real motive for actual improvement and innovation (especially organization wise). As most it could talk the talk but failed at walking the walk.
So as to what I want - I want to run with the best ( I am well aware that getting into the right circle will be quite a humbling experience for me). Thats why I'm looking to move to one of the tech hotspots to work for somebody else for a year or two and then to start out on my own. Also very important to me is that there are mountains or hills somewhere close.
So these are the locations I am currently aware of, that might offer what I'm looking for but I would need opinions of the hive mind - especially from those who have been to multiple places mentioned:
1. Bay area: The spot, everybody is there - however I am from central Europe, thus it is pretty much impossible for me to move there, since I am unwilling to sell my soul to a company as a slave worker (thats what H1B appears to me), so this one sadly out of consideration unless I win a lottery.
2. Other US spots: Read point 1.
3. Vancouver: Supposedly has vibrant startup community that is second to only SF (?).
4. Santiago de Chile: Currently destination I am most excited about (after SF that is), since it is kinda exotic and I would expect that its rising star status might attract other pioneer type, wacky people that I am extremely delighted to be around. Also it seems that Chile has an outlook of significant economic stability ahead of it.
5. Brisbane, Melbourne,...:?
As for skills - I have 5 years of experience and have worked on business type applications for governments, banks, etc. Some of these systems were global, some had web capabilities others did not. I have experience in development, leading a technical team, lecturing,... <comment><USER2> I'd imagine that you could get yourself to the bay area if you went back to school for an advanced degree. I don't know if that's your path, but you could use that as a foot in the door.</comment>