Pythonisms vs. JavaScriptures: what's your favorite? - <AUTHOR> http://dutherenverseauborddelatable.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/crowdsourcing-the-syntax/#

<comment><USER2> Half the tools on the web shred whitespace. Being whitespace-sensitive is going to make it painful to talk about your language and hinder adoption, unless there's a more robust yet readable syntax that's trivial to convert to and from.

Also, the framework is not producing progressive enhancement markup or running js on your server. "Write this:" on <http://opalang.org/> is an empty div, and <http://chat.opalang.org/> has no form to submit and does nothing. Sorry, I simply couldn't use it in its current state.

<comment><USER3> > Half the tools on the web shred whitespace. Being whitespace-sensitive is > going to make it painful to talk about your language and hinder adoption, > unless there's a more robust yet readable syntax that's trivial to convert > to and from.

Interesting point. On the other hand, the source code goes through a compiler before anything happens, so none of the tools you mention would touch the source code.

> Also, the framework is not producing progressive enhancement markup or > running js on your server.

No, it's not. Why should it?

> "Write this:" on <http://opalang.org/> is an empty div, and > <http://chat.opalang.org/> has no form to submit and does nothing. Sorry, I > simply couldn't use it in its current state.

Er, what? That sounds very surprising, since I'm currently using the chat. Are you using Opera Mini or are you blocking JS?

<comment><USER2> Every broken js-only resource is a step backwards towards the client-server hell the web delivered us from, with siloed content that can't be repurposed because there's only one hunk of client code that even knows how to access it. No progressive enhancement support is a severe limitation for any web framework to have, and should at least be disclosed to potential authors if you aren't going to fix it.

<comment><USER3> Ok, I think I now understand your point, even if I don't agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Let's get a bit technical, we really expect you to share with us.

<comment><USER3> I should add that this conversation is about the Opa platform (<http://opalang.org>). The feedback we are currently gathering from the community is going to play an extremely important role in shaping the future of Opa.</comment></comment>


The future of fake news: don't believe everything you read, see or hear - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/26/fake-news-obama-video-trump-face2face-doctored-content <comment><USER2> The future of fake news aside... this will become an awesome tool in the film industry.

On set Directors and DP alike will no longer have to do worry about talent doing multiple takes if manipulation like this can happen in post.</comment>


The Boring Company's Las Vegas tunnel is nearly 50% done - <AUTHOR> https://www.teslarati.com/the-boring-companys-las-vegas-tunnel-is-nearly-50-done/ <comment><USER3> ELI5... why is digging a tunnel tech news? Does Elon dig them faster or more cheaply or something? Otherwise do I submit this to HN? [https://www.sydneymetro.info/tunnelling](https://www.sydneymetro.info/tunnelling).

I think tunnels are the future though for cities. But I'd prefer trains to be running in them, or roads that only allow electric public transport.

Edit. In 1988 they started work on the Channel Tunnel UK to France: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel) \- I am still in awe that they did this! I like the vision, bean counters be damned. If he made a tunnel like that it'd be news.

<comment><USER4> I think this follows Elons pattern of being able to find areas where the fundamental technology has advanced and is available, but the integration and step up to a new level hasn't been invested in yet. I think the Boring company basically made more efficient custom built tunneling equipment.

<comment><USER5> Actually Musk leased an existing Canadian boring machine:

[http://superexcavators.com/news/super-excavators-consult- mac...](http://superexcavators.com/news/super-excavators-consult-machine)

There is no evidence of any improvements or innovations.

<comment><USER6> And the Tesla Roadster was just a modified Lotus Elise.

Buying an of-the-shelf product and reverse engineering it, before building ones' own, is a very valuable step.

<comment><USER7> And Tesla's Gigfactory is a JV with Panasonic and partially funded by taxpayers.

I'd say the largest value add about Elon Musk is his ability to create a reality distortion field to convince large swathes of people to follow his dream.

I'm actually not being critical of Musk here. Jobs did this and you can see how transformative certain technologies have been as a result.

<comment><USER8> Can't we call it passion and vision instead of "reality distortion field"?

<comment><USER9> Can we have passion and vison that doesn't need reality distorted and instead follows truth and the laws of physics and logic in our universe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Stated opening date isn't until 2021, so they're doing the first 90% of the project which is drilling then the second 90% which is finishing the infrastructure, installing stations, etc. It's interesting to see but not exactly a milestone just yet.

</comment><comment><USER11> So they're halfway through digging the tunnel, not halfway through doing all the other things to make the tunnel actually as useful as musk is claiming.

This all just seems like subways from first principles but probably worse.

<comment><USER12> Though if they really dug that much tunnel under a city in such a short time, maybe there's an actual innovation in a better way to make subway tunnels?

I think putting cars in these tunnels is silly and that subways are obviously the best answer personally, but I'm also watching two new light rail lines being put in next to my house. It does not seem quick (though they're elevated). It'd be lovely if those tracks were somehow underground faster and cheaper than above ground.

I'm happy enough it's finally happening, but if it could be done economically in a way that reclaimed the land the rail lines are on to make a park or more housing? And without trains driving by my windows on both sides? Maybe the boring machine itself is somehow better than what we dig tunnels now.

<comment><USER13> If there were an actual innovation in tunneling, I feel like they'd be able to give actual specific metrics to rebut critics who argue that it's apples to oranges. But AFAIK the bottleneck in tunneling is not a mechanical engineering one.

<comment><USER14> What is the bottleneck

<comment><USER15> Geotech is a bitch. Soils aren't homogenous and vary a lot in both composition and characteristics. There are multiple types of TBMs that are designed to operate under very specific conditions, for example a soft rock/soil TBM excavates through different mechanisms than a hard rock TBM. One of the big problems in any excavation is you have no idea what's actually down there until you start working in it. The underlying material can differ a lot over very short distances. You can very easily be minding your own business driving the TBM and run into a transition that will straight up mess you up. Combine that with all the previous mentioned stuff and you get a lot of cost overruns and time overruns. But yea, subsurface is a bitch.

<comment><USER16> Great answer, but I also want to add:

Even if you had ideal conditions or an amazing new TBM that goes through any material, you're still dealing with a machine that scrapes at rocks for miles on end. The parts that do the digging need constant replacement, underground, on the inconvenient side of the boring machine, and even if you did the actual digging faster that'd mean repairing it even more often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is this for real? They are basically getting orgasms just because someone drills a tunnel, which is indeed revolutionary for public transportation... And it transports a whopping 4500 people per hour, will you think of that! That is almost as much as a normal, 100 year old subway train can do in a few minutes.

<comment><USER18> I don't know a lot about the background of this project or the region. Why has it taken this long for a tunnel to be built in LV? Was/is it not considered necessary?

<comment><USER19> It's pretty much misleading to describe this as a Los Vegas tunnel to be honest. What they're actually doing is building a small shuttle system to get from one side of a convention centre to the other. The total length of the tunnel will be 1 mile. So in terms of what this project does, it's best compared to the sorts of bus systems, monorails, and light rail systems that airports use to transport people from one terminal to another. There's a reason these small funky transit systems are only used on small scales.

It's not comparable to real mass transit systems used on the scale of a city and the length of the tunnel means that the public really can't view the cost of this as comparable to the cost of a real Subway system tunnel or road tunnel.

The relevance of the project for TBC is that they're going to learn from it, but for the rest of us it's really not going to be that interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The Strip, McCarran airport, and downtown are not within one or two miles of each other. They are further apart than that so there must be something else to it.

The Strip itself could use the whole length of the tunnel, so whatever this is connecting to is going to be more limited then it might sound from the article.

<comment><USER21> It's just from one end of the LVCC to the other.

<comment><USER22> That sounds silly until you've walked from one end of the LVCC to the other.

<comment><USER23> The expansion of the LVCC made me vaguely curious about what types of shows use it given that all the IT shows I'm familiar with use the Venetian/Sands or, if they're a bit smaller, The Mandalay Bay. I haven't been there since Comdex days. It looks as if it's things like Kitchen and Bath Builders, World of Concrete, etc. So maybe things that are more oriented towards a mega show floor and less to speaking rooms.

<comment><USER24> CES is the key one. It occupies all of LVCC and Sands, with spillover and unofficial meeting rooms taking up basically all of the strip. It's not clear what CES is going to do with another full hall though. The show is already kind of a mish-mash of industries.

<comment><USER23> I forgot about CES because I've never been to that one.

It still sort of amazes me that CES hasn't collapsed under its own weight. Comdex did. CeBIT finally did. I thought it was finally going to happen about a decade ago when Microsoft pulled out; that's the usual "emperor has no clothes" moment. But it kept on going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The article is confusing. It says that they are supposed to deliver two tunnels - are both going on at the same time?

It also says that they're 6 football fields in: 1800 ft. This is only 35% of the stated mile length for the tunnel. Under what metric is this tunnel or project 50% complete?

<comment><USER26> This article from 10 days ago says "About 1,900 feet of the 4,300-foot-long tunnel has been dug in the seven weeks since the project's kickoff".

[https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/conventions/boring- co...](https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/conventions/boring-co-s-1st-las- vegas-convention-center-tunnel-nears-halfway-point-1929443/)

So I think the Teslarati article just rounded 4,300 feet up to "a mile" (=5,280 feet). 1900/4300 = 44%.

<comment><USER27> Also good to note that Teslarati is an "Elon Musk fan boy" blog. Anything that you read there is usually lacking critical sense. They probably rounded 44% to 50%

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Isn't this just describing building a small but fancy subway system? Honest question: what's the novel "wow" factor that I'm missing?

<comment><USER11> The "wow" factor is that Musk's name is associated with it. Nothing more.

<comment><USER29> Isn't the Tesla just an electric car?

Musk as a company leader means a lot. I'm sure a lot of other people had the idea for a "Tesla" before there was Tesla. Or the idea of self-landing rockets.

<comment><USER30> There's a big difference between an ICE car and a BEV.

There's no difference between a tunnel and a tunnel.

<comment><USER31> When you build the tunnel for a tenth the cost, that's a pretty big difference. The same budget lets you build ten times more infrastructure, which is quite badly needed! I live in Los Angeles and things are so bad here that often you simply can't see friends that live only a few miles away.

<comment><USER32> But what if it's also tenth the capacity? According to the article this accommodates 4,400 people/hr. BART ridership is 411k/day, and (to pick a random example) Gangnam subway station in Seoul averages at 230k/day. And that's actual usage, not max capacity.

<comment><USER31> That's only a valid comparison if you take massive infrastructure projects head-on. There is no law of physics stating that these tunnels can't be used for other situations and purposes.

Several things come to mind:

1\. There are lots of places with lower density than city centers, but higher density than suburbs that would benefit massively from underground transportation.

2\. Smaller tunnels running everywhere will be very useful for package delivery! John McCarthy (the man that gave us LISP) explains it in detail here: [http://jmc.stanford.edu/commentary/future/delivery.html](http://jmc.stanford.edu/commentary/future/delivery.html)

3\. Let's not discount the strong likelihood of further cost reductions. The Boring Company has made huge strides already, with further cost and speed gains to be had from a TBM they are designing and building from scratch: [https://www.teslarati.com/boring-company-line-storm- tunnelin...](https://www.teslarati.com/boring-company-line-storm-tunneling- machine-active/)

<comment><USER33> Do you have any citation for the "huge strides" TBC has made already? The only concrete numbers I've seen have been apples to oranges, either not normalizing for cross section area, or comparing just the cost of TBC digging to complete projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I recently learned about the amount of homeless living in tunnels under the Las Vegas strip (1). I would imagine the depth for Boring Co is significant in comparison to these runoff tunnels right beneath the surface, but still popped into my mind..

1) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRrxFX1wfFg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRrxFX1wfFg)

</comment><comment><USER35> The Boring Company's FAQ is actually pretty helpful in understanding why their approach is innovative.

In short: Small autonomous vehicles instead of big subway cars means you can change the model from one of big stations with big heavy trains that must speed up and slow down constantly to let people in and out, to one with smaller pods that go directly from a specific origin to a destination, travels mostly entirely at their top speed, never have to slow down for stops or other vehicles, etc.

Also, the tunnels for this can be smaller and therefore exponentially cheaper to dig.

[https://www.boringcompany.com/faq](https://www.boringcompany.com/faq)

<comment><USER19> Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but everything we know about urban planning is that large high capacity vehicles doing fixed routes are way more efficient than individual point to point travel. Cars aren't as efficient as busses, busses aren't as efficient as trains. Or to put it another way - <USER2> your logic everyone should just be flying in private jets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I wish Musk could provide a clearer vision for why this is important (cheap subways for any city that wants one!). Instead we get weird tiny bumpy tunnels and car elevators.

</comment><comment><USER37> The article says that two one-mile lengths will be constructed and that now they have completed more than 6 football fields (say 600 meters). That is not quite 20% of two miles, so the math may be more leading edge than the shovel. The article also says that the equipment has been underground "for months," so it doesn't get me thinking that tunnels are ready to conquer widespread problems on a large scale soon.

</comment><comment><USER38> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dn6ZVpJLxs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dn6ZVpJLxs)

Here is an analysis of why Musk's tunnels are ridiculous. I used to believe in them too, so you can trust that this completely changed my opinion. Facts are more important than magic, people.

</comment><comment><USER39> Here is great Vegas blog that broke the news on the tunnel in Vegas.

[https://vitalvegas.com/elon-musks-tunnel-project-is- underway...](https://vitalvegas.com/elon-musks-tunnel-project-is-underway-at- las-vegas-convention-center/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Perhaps the timing makes sense, similar to high-rises and how they have their concrete structure complete a very long time before anyone can actually move in.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is a textbook study case for the Dunning Kruger effect

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't know much about tunneling speeds, but this seems much faster than Big Bertha in Seattle although for a much smaller volume (the tunnel is narrower) and (I'm assuming) less complex location.

Big Bertha - 3.5 years, ~1.75 miles, 1.5 m/yr

Boring - .15 years, .35 miles, 2.33 m/yr

<comment><USER30> Your units are confusing me. Meters per year? Surely they're faster than that?

<comment><USER41> They used miles and years right before that, so I'm not sure how it is confusing that m/yr is miles/year

<comment><USER42> It's confusing because the way the units are represented is inconsistent.

<comment><USER43> You find the 'yr' confusing?

<comment><USER42> No, they interchanged miles with m, and in a weird unintuitive way at that. m isn't even standard for miles, it's standard for meters, and just before that miles was written instead of shortened - it's not just confusing it's also terribly presented. At least yr is intuitive, nothing about m is easily understood even given the context (which is why so many other people are complaining about it).

<comment><USER43> Okay, though that sounds like you're actually objecting for a different reason than inconsistency.

But I will note that "m" is used in the common distance-over-time unit of mph.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If the tunnel was 0% done on November 15, and is 50% done today, why isn't the tunnel opening before 2021? If this is actually their rate of progress, the tunnel should be ready by March.

</comment><comment> pro-duct This sounds comically obvious, but WOW that was fast. Really impressed that they are delivering on some of their promises, given Musk's history of over- optimism. Sincerely wishing them the best of luck, because if they can pull this off, there will be other cities making deals with them (please San Francisco I'm begging you)

<comment><USER45> They just used an off-the-shelf machine from another company. Modern tunnel boring machines are this fast.</comment></comment>


Apple Had Five Ways to Fuel Earnings. Only One Still Works - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-03/questions-on-apple-aapl-earnings-strategies-after-outlook-cut <comment><USER2> I can't quite put my finger on it, but Apple products feel like they've lost their soul. I remember buying my first Apple computer back in 2004, a 12" iBook G4. It was mesmerizingly good. It wasn't objectively the fastest and I'm sure other people can point to other computers that ticked more boxes, but the computer just made me want to use it, look at it, and admire it--the green glow of the power connector ring, the white cables, the "breathing" sleep light, the high quality polycarbonate, the FireWire port in case you wanted to connect a pro-level video camera--it all screamed "I'm a high quality product with a soul." Not to mention that OS X seemed much more stable than it is today.

I have a 2018 MacBook Pro and while I think it's objectively the best MacBook Pro they've ever made, it's just depressing to use. It feels like all the desire has been sucked out of it. It doesn't feel like Apple is making the best computer they can make, it feels like they're making the best computer for their bottom line. Most importantly, it feels like Apple has lost respect for their customers.

<comment> jf- It would help if the MBP were actually a professional level device instead of being a souped-up, hyper-expensive consumer laptop.

That would mean more ports, a higher minimum spec, and the ability to upgrade the internals. The touchbar could be dropped entirely, it's really just a marketing gimmick.

<comment><USER3> The lack of touchbar (retaining the touchID login) is one of the reasons I'm digging the latest MB Air. The ports issue... I'm not sure if Apple will ever resolve that.

<comment><USER2> How's the screen? I've heard it's less bright than the MBP.

<comment><USER4> I mean you could compare the figures for the nits but, as an example, I feel like my retinas are burning off at 100% brightness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find it odd that being a big in a large market that isn't growing (like the mobile phone market) is seen as a problem. Why does the company need to grow if it's profitable as it is?

I think what apple will find is that the market won't stand for their high- priced iPhones forever. If they have any sense, they'll notice this and put their prices down again.

<comment><USER6> Because for shareholders, the stock price only appreciates if the company grows.

In many ways, it mirrors the issues for Hacker News entrepreneurs. To get VC capital, you have to dangle promises high returns on your equity — even if a consistent cashflow business is a great outcome for an entrepreneur (these businesses are pejoratively called "lifestyle businesses").

<comment><USER7> Which is why dividends exist. Mature companies may grow less, but they produce profit, which can be distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends.

<comment><USER8> Dividends are not some magic; they are taken out of the share price. There's not really a difference between reinvested dividends vs. no dividends at all. And non-reinvested dividends are less optimal as you'll pay taxes on them, so you actually have less net worth from collecting and not reinvesting dividends vs. either reinvesting them, or investing in a company which doesn't yield a dividend.

It's a fallacy that many people fall for though. See Berkshire Hathaway for the prime example.

<comment><USER9> Some public companies choose to return cash to shareholders through share buybacks rather than dividends because it's more tax efficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Isn't the main problem the same one that beset PC manufacturers as the computers got fast enough that no one needed to upgrade anymore? Couple that with Apple making phones that cost >$1000 and it seems like the natural end this was headed to. My iPhone SE does every single thing I need a phone to do and it costed about $99.

<comment><USER11> I've had similar thoughts. I currently have an iPhone 6S, I've had it for 30 months, and don't really have a need to change it. I remember when I started changing laptops only when they broke, and it's a similar feeling

<comment><USER12> I've had my 6S Plus now for 36 months and definitely don't need a change, though I do like the screens on the newer iPhones.

One interesting thing about the my phone is I managed to crack the screen on the 3 iPhones I had before, sometimes multiple times. I've put this one through hell and back and it just keeps going. I wonder if the build quality (not just features and performance) has been a factor in slowing upgrades...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The problem I see is that as the iPhone became big they shifted focus towards it instead of trying to focus on everything they already have. But I could be wrong, and maybe someone else might have more insight. I want Apple to succeed, same with Microsoft. They are imho necessary companies, otherwise we're stuck with whatever Google, Facebook or Amazon feed us.

<comment><USER14> The mobile phone market was already becoming the largest electronics market in the world before Apple entered it. It made perfect sense to focus on that.

Eleven years later, there is still not a single electronic item that is larger than the smart phone market.

PC's aren't making a comeback, TV's are low margin and bulky, etc.

<comment><USER13> You still need proper machines to develop for those phones though, and since Apple requires Macs for it, they really should of never neglected their computer market. I am pretty damn sure if they hadn't we'd have seen a lot more Macs all throughout. Now we're seeing plenty of dedicated Mac users jump ship to Linux or even Windows 10.

<comment><USER15> I think you misunderstood the parent comments point. "PCs aren't making a comeback" doesn't mean they disappear entirely. It means that they've now been relegated to niche use cases, like the ones you point out.

Not only have mobile phones cannibalized the "a PC on every desk" for people at home, they've expanded to "a computer in every pocket".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The real story here is the sharp economic downturn in China.

The fact that Apple hit or exceeded their sales goals in most regions but crashed in China is telling.

Perhaps China is decoupling from global growth much like Japan did in the early 90s.

</comment><comment><USER17> Speaking only for myself, a single iPhone has always cost more than I want to pay. I'm doubly concerned with dropping it. My main thought with buying a phone is would I be willing to buy a second one if something happens to the first one.

<comment><USER18> Out of curiosity, do you have that same mindset (i.e. a factor of your decision to purchase is whether or not you're willing to buy another one if the first one is unusable) with anything else in your life? Also, Applecare+ is a worthwhile deal if you're that concerned about breaking the phone (and probably even moreso now with the glass-backed phones).

<comment><USER19> The difference for me is the "good enough" factor.

I'm fine with paying an explanation premium to go from 90 -> 100% functionality.

But only when 90% functional doesn't already cover my needs.

Apple goosed the iPhone price exactly as phone processors started hitting Moore's cliff of diminishing performance returns. High performance across the market + most users served by "good enough" processors = commodity

Apple's never done well with commodities.

<comment><USER20> "Moore's cliff"?

iPhone processors (unlike Macs) are still getting much faster every update. You can debate whether that extra speed is actually useful in everyday life, but they are getting faster.

<comment><USER19> The A12 made some extremely smart memory µarch changes and benefited from a node shrink to TSMC's 7N.

We'll see how EUV scales for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> To summarize the comments here...

Apple sells outrageously-overpriced commodity technology, coupled with gimmicky features, buggy software, and planned obsolescence, to naive consumers who buy it every year regardless.

AND

Apple's products are so well-designed and reliable that customers remain satisfied for years and don't feel the need to upgrade on an annual basis because their current devices do everything they need.

Also, Apple's constant incremental innovation combined with the fact that they stopped all innovation a decade ago (save for headphone jack removal) will be the death of the company.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here's an idea on how to make billions selling a product in a market that seems in decline.

1) Take the latest Macbook Pro

2) Remove the Touchbar, add back F row buttons and ports.

3) Replace the LCD with a 4K OLED display with thin bezels

It is that easy.

<comment><USER23> Another suggestion:

1) Take the latest iPhone XS

2) Give it a better camera

3) Make it iPhone-SE sized, get rid of the huge display crop

4) Include 5G support

<comment><USER24> You might as well ask for wings on it. So far 5G phones have to be extremely big and ungainly as they need antennas facing in numerous directions.

(and there is a large percentage of the population that prefers larger screen phones).

<comment><USER23> There is also a large percentage that prefers smaller screen phones. I know that 5G tech isn't there yet, I didn't mean it has to be today, more like within a year or two.

<comment><USER25> A year or two _is_ what's being developed today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Lived and invested in India for the last four years. This is definitely not China and I dont see the inclination among Indian consumers to shell out $1000 for an iPhone. India is the most competitive Android market in the world, with high-end, competitive phones with same features as an iPhone retailing for $200 - $300 (see Pocophone F1 by Xiaomi). Apple would need a radically different game-plan if they are serious about India.

</comment><comment><USER27> Apple will just have to make a car, release a ring, move into healthcare AI, make their own Netflix, and come up with new things like a search engine or something completely new (yes I know you all think search is done and it's impossible to compete with the incumbent). Or they could make a purchases in cash of up to $285bn which if you take that pile of money out of their stock price they look extremely cheap today.

</comment><comment><USER28> I know that growth is obviously important, and Apple has had bigger quarters, but estimating $84 billion of revenue with a 38% gross margin in a SINGLE quarter is wild.

<comment><USER29> It is important for share price speculators

The company itself is okay of course

People that overbid its shares will not be

<comment><USER30> And employees who count on stock options in their financial plans will not be happy.

<comment><USER29> Correct, employees of liquid publicly traded companies should get restricted stock units or restricted stock awards

Stock options holders simply wont exercise, and can buy shares for cheaper in the ESPP window

Too bad about the time used in the best years of their lives though, better to optimize that with better negotiation

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _Financially, Apple continues to be a well-managed company. It is generating returns for shareholders in spite of operational missteps._

What "operational missteps"?

<comment><USER31> Maps, BatteryGate, the unpopular decision to kill the jack, Butterfly KeyboardGate, the increasingly vocal unhappiness of professional users...

There are probably more, but those are the obvious ones.

<comment><USER14> And outside of the tech bubble. No one cared.

Volume sales didn't take a noticeable hit because of any of those issues...

And they have reported volume sales up through last quarter.

iPhone users are not flocking to Android in developed countries. Even in China, prices have more to do with Apples issues than anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> One thing this article misses is Apple's strong 1 Billion+ installed base. Here is the thing: It is hard to make more money from a few million (and declining YoY) new devices that Apple sells every year. But Apple can make more and more money from every Apple ID currently active. This is a big change in their business model I agree but it just makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER33> Bloomberg seems to love gory stories . Apple still has quite the low P/E ratio.

<comment><USER34> It's not just Bloomberg. Many others have been expecting this for a while because Apple has been disproportionately dependent on iPhone revenue and they don't have some new product that will push them to the next level.

Both the iPad and Watch are not the home run product that is needed.

In many ways Apple's extended software support of their older hardware gives users even less of a reason to buy a new device. I think that shows they are a company not primarily focused on profit because they could make changes to push people to upgrade their device faster.

It seems like they need to do more with services or start buying up some other businesses with all that cash they're sitting on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Apple is failing the same way IBM had failed. It saw itself as a hardware company with software only promoting hardware sales. Sure they have the app store and apple music but that's a sliver of their income.

Apple has both failed to diversify into other areas and run out of ways to innovate in current ones. I'm not sure why they went for autonomous cars when they were such a easy sell as a consumer electronics brand, they could have sold TVs and home theatre systems that are so much easier to use than existing ones without much effort.

</comment><comment><USER36> Unfortunately, I think one of their problems is that iPhones last too long. I'm still very happy with my iPhone 6. The spec updates aren't as tantalizing as they used to be.

<comment><USER37> Don't worry. Many people buy new ones based on gimmicks (the notch, marginally thinner devices, etc). But they're running out of those too.

Having a reputation for low quality would kill the demand they have now. Their strategy is to entice upgrades, not to replace on breakage. Which is better, as it makes for a happier consumer that had choices on this.

BTW: did you change your battery?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The good news for Developers is that native smartphone apps will start disappearing over the next 5-10 years in favor of WebAssembly apps (no more annoying app updates!) and we'll see a full swing back to a browser-based Internet.

[EDIT: Not implying Apple will support wasm, but their plateau enables _other_ wasm-first platforms to emerge. Content providers will give away $100 phones to secure subscription revenue.]

<comment> jf- Web assembly is definitely a threat to apple's app revenues, though maybe not an existential one. Given that apple are already experiencing a slowdown, and big names like Netflix are trying to avoid the "apple tax", I'd expect to see them fight this tooth and nail. Even to the extent of blocking wasm on some sort of security grounds, wether valid or not.

<comment><USER25> > I'd expect to see them fight this tooth and nail. Even to the extent of > blocking wasm on some sort of security grounds, wether valid or not.

Do you have an example of precedence that supports this extremely user hostile view of Apple?

<comment> jf- PWA support. Safari was late to the party, and iOS doesn't make adding a PWA intuitive at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wish apple would consider creating a rack-mount server to compete with Intel. They clearly have the silicon expertise to mint their own CPUs. I realize this isn't a sexy industry with lots of growth, but neither is the phone market anymore.

<comment><USER40> The Xserve ecosystem used to be pretty neat, but I doubt it was very profitable. It's hard to compete against cheap commodity servers like supermicro and such.

<comment><USER24> I think a case could be made about being in not-so-profitable industries if it helps support your whole business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> [reiterating]*

-1 points by eruci 62 days ago | parent [-] | on: Apple Used to Be an Inventor. Now It's Mainly a La...

Apple died with Steve Jobs. No new products just same shit with double and triple price. Shrinking customer base due to overpricing is the death of any company and utter betrayal of Jobs vision.

</comment><comment><USER42> Apple will need to focus more on the quality of its software (which has lagged) as the hardware is commoditized and they've maxed out our willingness to pay more for the iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER43> Not surprising when you put almost all your eggs in one basket and the fad dries up.

<comment><USER44> It's been 143 years, and finally the fad of... phones is behind us.

<comment><USER43> Having the latest and greatest marginally improved status symbol of a phone fad.</comment></comment></comment>


$75 million in drugs stolen from an Eli Lilly warehouse - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704688604575125522684707974.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

<comment><USER2> Is that $75 million we'd pay for the drugs in the US? Or would it merely be the $5 million they'd pay for the drugs in Canada? Headline should probably read $2 million in drugs stolen. :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> $75M of anything inside, and not even a rent-a-cop on site?

<comment><USER4> What's the (true) replacement cost?

What's the pharma co's liability due to theft?

I didn't just recheck the article (saw it earlier), but IIRC the $75MM cited is wholesale cost to downstream distributors (next step in the distribution chain).

At the same time, it does kind of, in a sideways fashion, help make a mockery of our so-called "war on [illegal] drugs".

EDIT: Although, with regard to my last sentence, the article (or the one I saw, if not WSJ) does point out that no narcotics nor stimulants were present.</comment></comment>


Great website != successful...Warren Buffet == 586,000% growth - <AUTHOR> http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/

<comment><USER2> Although that's the website of the holding company. c.f. the website of one of the companies they own: [http://www.geico.com/](http://www.geico.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely. Berkshire holds sizable positions in companies that spend significant amounts of money on marketing and website design.

What I find fascinating is the absolute simplicity. People do not buy shares in BRK for fancy design or cutting-edge tech solutions. They buy shares because Warren Buffett has return 586,000% gain over the life of the fund (i.e. 1964 to present).

Berkshire, with Warren Buffett at the helm, does one thing really well: make money. That is their product and that is all they focus on.</comment></comment>


How much can you really make developing mobile apps? - <AUTHOR> http://www.loiclemeur.com/english/2010/08/how-much-can-you-really-make-developing-mobile-apps.html <comment><USER2> The problem with any industry (whether it's books, music, movies, restaurants, web apps, mobile apps, consumer products) is that the ones at the low end of the spectrum generally share the following attributes:

1) They are either of very low quality compared to others at the top, or are complete garbage and are generally not worth buying at all

2) They are generic me-too rip-offs of existing popular brands or products

3) They try to fill a niche that doesn't readily need to be filled or isn't well-understood

4) Lazy marketing/communication or, worse, "build it and they will come" complacent genius attitude

There is a reason that companies like taptaptap can continue making _at least_ a half-million dollars in revenue on their apps consistently. You've got to take a look at the mid-section of the app store rankings to get a feel for what the real, unhyped apps are doing, and why they are successful.

What I mean is, take a look at the apps at #75 to #150 on the app store chart. You get a good cross-section of apps in all categories _and_ price points. Let's also remember that, if figures from past blog entries about app store sales-to-rank correlations generally hold true from day to day, apps in that mid-section are generally getting between 400 to 1000 sales a day. Link that to a sales price of, say, 4.99, and you're looking at some serious money per diem, even after Apple's cut.

That's where the true beauty of the "Gross sales" chart comes into use. It's less of a popularity contest or crapshoot, because I've seen indie companies with little to almost no brand relevance clinging to that mid-section rankings for well over a year, and some of them are priced above 99 cents (in a few instances, well above).

What it really boils down to is quality. If you don't have anything worth selling, I guess no one will buy it. Furthermore, it's really hard to determine if what you're doing is worth buying to the general iPhone or Android smartphone user. Put another way, if you take everyone playing in your space, would _you_ choose your work over the competition? If not, why not? Because I can tell you this right now: Most, if not all, of the apps that have ever kissed the top 10 rankings on the app store were made by 2-4 person teams and took a few months of full-time work to complete. The ones that stick around update _constantly_ or are established brands. There are some flash in the pans that make it to the top but if you look closer, they are either building hype elsewhere (such as with a free facebook or flash app) or fills a niche in Utilities that heretofore haven't been well-served.

<comment><USER3> 4) Lazy marketing: Hm. What steps would you take to promote an iPhone (or Android) app, assuming it's a well-made app that doesn't fall into the categories 1) to 3)?

<comment><USER2> This is where the test of true value comes into play, for both your app and the person promoting your app (who could easily be the person who created it).

Here's some starters. Note that none of these cost anything really, unless you outsource any part of this:

0) One little way I've seen some devs do it, and this isn't really true of everyone, is they have a developer blog or diary with little snippets of code or screenshots or balsamiq mockups or character sketches for games, to build hype. I see streetwear clothing brands do this all the time, and it captures the energy of the product before you even see the finished product.

1) Get active on boards and social groups that have alot of members that would take their interests to their phone. If you're an automobile mile-per-gallon (MPG) calculating app, frequent some hypermiling or green-car (or even general automotive) blogs and forums, get active, and then tell the site admin that you've got an app for that and that you'll promise them a promo code if they can review it. Be prepared for all kinds of tricks back from them (especially if the site is popular). If you want to make a deal (payola review, promotion, etc.), go ahead and make it. You don't generally have to do much with the smaller niche sites, though. A promo code will probably do it. You can also PM one of the board moderators or senior members if they want to take a look at the app as well. Could be worth it.

2) This doesn't really work with games (though it could, I guess), but if it's not a game app, SEO your product website, per instructions on patio11's blog: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/07/17/seo-for-software- compani...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/07/17/seo-for-software-companies/)

3) When it comes out, Facebook wall, tweet, prweb announce, etc the launch. The usual stuff that $19.99 "e-marketing" ebooks tell you to do but you should know from reading HN every day anyway :) That stuff's easy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone who's had apps break the top 50 in the iPhone store (for a while, Reflexion) and currently has a top 25 in its category in the Android store (NewsRoom), I can say that the economics aren't fantastic.

On the iPhone the competition is fucking insane and it depends on a lot more than just your product. First, yes, you need something that is amazing, better than Reflexion for sure, but you also need to have the connections to get it pushed at launch so you get in the top 25. Once there, if your app is brilliant, then you will make bank, no doubt about it. But there's a lot of if's there. You'll notice that the players doing well in the AppStore now (repeatedly) are the ones that can leverage previous hits to catapult new ones. To give you an idea of scale, the few days we were a top 25 game we were making over $1k a day.

On Android, the money just isn't there yet. The culture so far doesn't seem to encourage paid apps to the same extent as the iPhone. We've floated up and down in popularity in the Paid Applications section and have done ok, but nothing you can really base a business on. Somewhere around $3k/month I believe.

The figures in the article using 'average' are way way off. My experience, as well as what I've heard from others is that the 'average' paid app makes nothing at all. Perhaps if you are in the top 5% then you are making a little bit, but a pittance, and the top .1% is rolling in it. This is especially true in the iPhone store, divide by 100 for the Android store.

It's a tough way to make money, no two ways about it.

<comment><USER2> "if your app is brilliant"

Yeah, that's really the bottom line. Good stuff just finds it's way to the top. Even good fart apps, or moron tests, or funny novelty camera effect utils.

You can't polish a tur- umm bad idea. But you can polish a decent idea or a quick, good idea into a performer. People are making a living on the app store (some a really good living) and they don't even chart.

Wasn't there a guy doing a gardening app that was making 6 figures on his own just by word-of-mouth? I don't think he charted except perhaps in his category. I forgot his blog or app name but he sold in-app purchases to re- energize his sales.

<comment><USER4> No I think you are simplifying it a bit.

Just because all the stuff making money is good (well not all, but most) does not mean all good stuff makes money.

There are some really fantastic apps and games where people are making nothing at all. The problem is it is too binary as it is, it just isn't very predictable.

All the random articles you see on the web of people making good money ignores the thousands upon thousands of people who aren't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For somebody who is so super-excited, those are some really dismal numbers to be excited about. Frankly it looks like a sucker's game. You might be better off playing the lottery. Trying to be a rock star.

<comment><USER6> I think that places like the AppStore and Android Market are good places to extend an already viable product like The Weather Channel, Twitter, OKCupid, Evernote and Facebook, to name a few off my head. At least for general applications. But due to the quantity of already available free applications, you'll need to aim for high quality applications that offer something unique.

Game developers on the other hand need to understand that the platform has a market with a short attention span. Unless it's a port of an already successful game like Doom or Final Fantasy, you're probably going to have to be pushing out a new app every couple months to stay on top. It is too easy for a consumer to get bored, and with a couple hundred thousand other free games available, you'll quickly lose your users if your game is dull. Games are where high quality unique applications can shine.

In the end, developing me-too rip-off applications will get you no where. It may be a couple thousand a year, but that's not enough to do it full time. There's a lot of hype for developers who wan't to make a lot of money real quick with mobile applications, but it is no different than the shareware/trialware application buzz from some years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A cheap iphone apps contractor in Dublin will get €500/day

<comment><USER2> Wow, that is unbelievable. So, I reckon they're making as much as physicians in Ireland do, at least family doctors or internists.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Fully functional Landing Page UI/UX done on a monthly subscription - <AUTHOR> http://draftss.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

We've built Draftss! An unlimited landing page & graphic design service for founders building side-projects/startups.

We've initially launched with graphic design as a service. Now we're adding fully functional landing page UI/UX done with HTML/CSS/JS in our array of services on a monthly subscription.

Looking for constructive feedback on making our product better and more useful for our customers.

URL: [http://draftss.com](http://draftss.com)</comment>


What I Did When I Couldn't Find a Job [in the US] - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/What-I-Did-When-I-Couldnt/66281/ For anyone curious about what Sikkim looks like... http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sikkim <comment><USER2> _grumble grumble_ I would never have expected legions of twentysomethings who want to work for noncommercial causes using expensive degrees which impart no skills more advanced than a GED to have so much difficulty finding great jobs right after college.

<comment><USER3> So, if (or, perhaps, when) all the people with liberal arts degrees go back to Javaschool and emerge in a couple of years with M.S. degrees in CS, is your company going to hire them all?

Or are you just jerking them around?

We've been down this road before. In the 1990s, everyone flocked to "CS" school to get in on all the sweet, sweet jobs of the future. Was the aftermath of that fun for anyone?

It is often read, on HN, that it isn't enough to just go through the motions of getting a technical degree. You need other qualities to succeed. The person with all the right qualities is rare. True enough. But does this mean that only those rare people with the right qualities deserve to live outside of poverty, or the imminent risk of poverty?

My father has a degree in political science. Fortunately, the economy wasn't broken in the 1960s, so he was able to get a white-collar job, buy a house, and have kids, like most other people with "basic" college degrees in the 1960s. Back then it was even expected that you could have a decent life with a mere high school diploma, or that GED you mention.

That doesn't work so well anymore. Is that a good thing? Be careful what you wish for. We are well on our way to building a society in which you can't have a middle-class lifestyle as, say, an insurance underwriter or medical records clerk without a college degree _in a technical or professional field_ , or maybe an M.S. degree. I think that's a bad idea. Many people have more education than they need, and an increasing number of people have more education than they want (considering that they have to go into debt for it, up front). Forcing unwilling people to struggle through advanced degrees tends to produce a lot of stress and pain, water down the advanced degrees, dilute the pool of degree holders, and waste absolutely _enormous_ amounts of time.

Oh, and it produces unnecessary barriers to entry. We could require all hotel administrators to hold an advanced degree in hotel administration. How does that sound to the AirBnB folks?

And all it does is buy time. In the end, jobs are as much about the demand for labor as the quality of the supply. Ph.D.s can be unemployed too. Highly trained semiconductor engineers can be unemployed. Automotive engineers are probably not doing so well right now.

Shadenfreude has an evil reputation for a reason. Please try to resist the temptation.

<comment><USER4> _Fortunately, the economy wasn't broken in the 1960s, so he was able to get a white-collar job, buy a house, and have kids,[...] That doesn't work so well anymore. [...] We are well on our way to building a society in which you can't have a middle-class lifestyle as, say, an insurance underwriter or medical records clerk..._

This statement just reflects a lack of understanding of what "middle class" meant in 1960. The standard of living of the American poor today is quite high, in many regards higher than the standard of living of the middle class in 1960.

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding- poverty-in-america)

Fun fact: in 1960, a coffee maker cost $29.95 and the average household income was just under $5000. In 2010, the coffee maker costs $12.95 and the average salary is about $50,000.

[http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd...](http://www.dadsvintageads.com/viewitem.php/dadsvintageads/pd959405/Vintage_Ad_1960_Toastmaster_Toaster_Coffee_Maker_Fry_Pan)

<comment><USER5> According to the BLS, the $29.95 that coffee maker cost in 1960 would be $221 in 2010 dollars.

I know your $5,000 vs. $50,000 figures are very rough, but $5,000 in 1960 would be $36,855 in 2010 dollars (and after taxes is not trivial, e.g. the personal exemptions that sheltered average families from the full and _very_ high tax rates in the '50s were largely nullified by inflation over the next couple of decades before Reagan started a variety of corrections).

<comment><USER6> He's saying that the quality of life improvement provided by a coffee maker in 1960 consumed 0.6% of the typical 1960 middle class salary vs. 0.03% of a typical 2010 middle class salary. A 20x reduction in cost for the same quality of life improvement for the middle class, in this example.

What additional insight do your numbers provide?

<comment><USER5> I think it's easier to understand how much cheaper the coffee maker is today, both in terms of absolute price and what people can afford, if you translate it into today's dollars. "It would cost $221" is a lot more visceral than 0.6% of a putative generic annual salary.

One thing I added was "doing the math"; yummyfajitas didn't go that far (which is no reflection on his posting) ... plus I think it's useful to point out just how significant inflation has been over the years.

<comment><USER6> The value of the percentage metric is that it allows you to compare a certain benefit in terms of the work it took to obtain it at different times. Given 2000 hours/year of work, it would have taken 12 hours of work to buy a coffee maker in 1960 vs. 0.6 hours of work in 2010.

To me, this makes the comparison exceedingly easy to understand.

<comment><USER5> Yes, that metric is also good, although not as visceral as the one I used. It's also timeless whereas someone reading my comment 20, 50, whatever years from now wouldn't be helped as much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think finding a job is never difficult considering one is ready to sacrifice the luxuries one has gotten accustomed to. Almost every American graduate can find a job in India. I know the outsourcing companies won't even ask you a question and hire you readily. It's just about making adjustments for the time being which I'm afraid many American graduates might have to make in the down economy.

I have been to Sikkim and it's one of the most beautiful places I have seen. I'd gladly move to Sikkim if only there was better and stable internet connection there. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way, people can not buy land in Sikkim (only the people from the state can, not even the rest of Indians) so one will have to get do with a rented place which should be quite cheap even for an Indian like me.

<comment><USER8> There are lots of places in India that are difficult for Westerners to live in. The lack of running water, toilet paper, and unreliable electricity was very challenging for my friend who spent 6 months in Hyderabad. He also picked up a very bad stomach flu that knocked him on his ass for a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Desperate times call for desperate measures, and this certainly is extreme. Unfortunately, his path is not easily replicated, and he recognises this. I have heard of others who move to India to take the job that they would have in the US because that is where their company moved it. But finding a job in a downturn is often a matter of being resourceful and thinking outside the box, not of wholesale relocation. I would be surprised if 1% of those who read this article are able to put in practice what this guy did.

</comment><comment><USER10> It seems to me that the calculations of how he's saving money relative to staying at home is offset a fair bit by the cost of airfare. All the same, I don't think that means one shouldn't do things like this---the experience (both professional and personal) is difficult to measure, but pretty valuable.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> For anyone curious about what Sikkim looks like... <http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sikkim>

</comment><comment><USER11> The thing I don't understand is how few people in the US are willing to move to a different state, nevermind another country. There's plenty of work for those willing to seek it and be flexible.

<comment><USER12> Moving often has a hefty cost, and not just financially.

<comment><USER13> So does being unemployed. Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's been a lot of hating on us poor liberal arts graduates that didn't have the foresight to know that our education was going to invariably lead to crushing, static unemployment, so I figure I'd throw in my $.02

I've been building and tinkering with computers since I was 11 and it has always been sort of a foregone conclusion that I would go into CS or compe. But when I started college, for a number of reasons, I decided I wanted to study physics. But a few years in, I realized I wasn't really getting the full-bodied education that I was hoping for. I noticed this in myself as well as my peers in comparable science/engineering programs. It turns out, many of the programs that leave you with marketable skills necessarily sacrifice breadth of understanding.

This isn't to say all cs grads know nothing of the world, but it was a noticeable problem. There is, of course, virtue in training people to think only about a single field and think about it deeply and constantly. But I didn't want to be one of those people, so I switched to Political Science.

Political Science, at my school, was an interdisciplinary program - it allowed students to design their own concentrations within the framework of the program. Because of this, I was able to take advanced level courses in philosophy, music theory, english, astrophysics, economics, and computer science. No I'm not an expert on any of these, but I have the groundwork to understand any of them that I wish to personally pursue further. And many of them, I have.

Of course, after five years of college, I finally realized that I'm most passionate about writing, advertising, and technology, but I'm stuck competing against people with more specifically tailored credentials. This is obviously a problem, and I'm not going to claim I haven't spent nights wishing I had just stuck with something that would land me a job and a life of comfort. But comfort is as dangerous as it is pleasant and a lack of it often spurs the greatest innovation. That last part, however, I'm still working on.

But what about my CS friends? Some of them are legitimately well-rounded and interesting people... and some sold their souls at 100 hr/wk at nyc firms making 100k but they'll never see the world with the appreciative eyes of the destitute - they'll always want more because that's all they've ever been taught to value. Many will live lives hopelessly seeking satisfaction through abundance.

Save your pity for those guys, thank you.

PS: I don't really think all these guys are doomed because they took high- stress, high-paying jobs, I just wanted to represent the other side of the coin. Don't assume all LAS grads are forever useless... also, if you have the means, hire one. (specifically, me)

</comment><comment><USER15> What was really funny was that he moved back home, then when he couldn't find a job there, he moved to India.

If you have a political science degree, why not move to Washington?

</comment><comment><USER16> So the author moved to India after being unable to find a job, but at some point, I assume they plan to return.

What do you think about his job prospects when he returns (regardless of the work; just taking into account that he opted to spend a year or 2 abroad like this)?

<comment><USER17> It's a pretty interesting story to put on a resume or cover letter- I'd imagine he will at least be able to get some interviews.

<comment><USER16> I don't doubt it, I'm just curious as to why you, or any other HNers, would find it interesting. What skills do you think would be applicable or transferable?

 __full disclosure: I'm in a somewhat similar situation right now __

<comment><USER18> Well, I know that if I were interviewing this chap (and I am interviewing people quite a bit) I would be at least impressed by his having shown some initiative. I would also say that someone who is willing and able to go and live fairly happily in a quite different cultural and lingual context than they may be used to, has shown themselves to be adaptable, inquisitive, and keen to learn.

Even in a poor economy, demonstrating those qualities still stands out. Almost certainly the most common reason for failing when interviewing with me is the "I haven't had a chance to..." story. Often this is in the context of software. "I haven't had a chance to try this language or that language" What they mean is that previous jobs haven't used it. They could easily have learnt about it in their own time - it just wasn't a priority for them. Which is fair enough - but you will lose out against those who turn "would like to do" in to "done".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Comments on every story like this follow the same predictable pattern. On Digg and Reddit, it's basically: "Haha, dumb liberal arts major! Of course you can't find work in the USA! You deserve what you get because we live in a just and fair world and everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them in life and the consequences of all their decisions!" Some of the comments here are similar, but other comments point out the fallacies in that line of thought. As someone who was a high school valedictorian who wanted to get a CS or business degree, but ended up with a Bachelor of General Studies in English, I've given lots of thought to why students get liberal arts degrees. Most students are unprepared for college-level classes, especially in mathematics. Despite having a perfect GPA in high school, I failed calculus - not because of partying (I didn't drink) but because I was totally unprepared for college-level math after bad high-school math classes. Mental illness is also a major reason why lots of people can't handle the rigors of an engineering or even business degree. According to NIMH, 26% of Americans age 18 or older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder [1]. Also, 40 percent of students have felt too depressed to function at sometime during their college career [2]. Throughout college, I had: never had a girlfriend or even kissed a girl, worried all the time about the end of the world and other potential threats, had never learned how to masturbate, and was concerned over whether God loved or hated me. Now THAT's mental illness! When they have a heavy cognitive load from mental illness, students are less able to deal with challenging classes. Finally, after going through the stress of being being unprepared for college classes and suffering from mental illness, many students end up with humanities degrees because they figure "at least it's a degree in something" and that any degree is better than no degree, because that's the message being broadcast from tons of outlets - guidance counselors, college advertising, college advisors, etc.

[1] [http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers- coun...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental- disorders-in-america/index.shtml)

[2] [http://www.jedfoundation.com/press-room/news- archive/Student...](http://www.jedfoundation.com/press-room/news- archive/Students-with-mental-troubles-on-rise)

<comment><USER20> That's not a mental illness. That's some sort of an existential crisis. I recommend you stop worrying about problems you can't solve, and start living. It's the only way you will find out what God thinks of you, or whether girls like you, or whether the earth will end.

And everyone is unprepared for college (as they were for high-school, or elementary, or kindergarten, and especially for their first job). The difference is in how they approach it. Personally, I locked myself in the library until I could do Calculus problems blindfolded, and then went to the bar to celebrate with my friends. Your results may vary. Note that feeling persecuted and defeated after you flunk a Calculus test is not a viable solution.

Sorry for being harsh.

<comment><USER19> I had a lot of other symptoms and was diagnosed with anxiety by a real doctor (not by internet commenters). Plus I had very high scores on inventories that are used to measure anxiety and depression. Also, SPECT and fMRI studies show that people with depression and anxiety have very different brains than people who are mentally healthy, indicating that some people have a baseline level of resilience that's higher than others. And tough love doesn't work. It's just another way to beat up on people who already feel beaten down. I still agree with most of your points, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A comprehensive guide to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living>

<comment><USER22> For _real_ simple living [http://www.amazon.com/Possum-living-without-almost- money/pro...](http://www.amazon.com/Possum-living-without-almost- money/product- reviews/0553136259/ref=sr_1_4_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&qid=1280103672&sr=8-4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder how many weeks he had to save up that $10/wk in order to afford the upcoming round trip back home?

</comment><comment><USER24> I guess he doesn't have student loans.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't really get the "couldn't find a job" part. I moved to a new city 4 months ago on a whim, and I had several companies bidding on me. I'm good, but I doubt I'm that good.

<comment><USER26> I doubt you're a polisci major.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is a very inspirational story!</comment>


Show HN: How I made a Wooden Bartop Arcade for 2 Players (with Raspberry Pi) - <AUTHOR> https://melodycode.com/life/how-i-made-a-bartop-arcade.html <comment><AUTHOR> Sources available: [https://github.com/SnaKKo/Bartop-2-Players-with-Raspberry- Pi](https://github.com/SnaKKo/Bartop-2-Players-with-Raspberry-Pi)</comment>


Ask HN: How to move from consulting to product business? - <AUTHOR> I was employed by many companies, that somehow managed to move from doing consulting to selling a product.
I mean, I worked for a few clients as a freelancer, but they basically paid me to build a product "they" wanted sell in the end.
The companies I was employed at somehow managed to work for clients, that paid them to build a product that the client wanted to use but didn't want to own and sell.
Somehow they got paid to build it AND could sell it to other clients afterwards.
How does this work? <comment><USER2> What part don't you understand. Client has a need, would like it to be solved for them. Consulting firm has seen multiple clients every year that have the same problem and the solution could be applied to each of them. Firm approaches Client about rights to the code and Client generally gets some consideration (usually in form of some free hours, as giving hours away is better than lowering your rate) and consulting firm gets to keep and resell the product or portions of the code. Support may be what is given away too, like 2 years free support or something rather than free hours. That is when it is done on the up and up.

In my own experience I also had taken a Client's idea and said I wouldn't charge them for the development because I wanted to own the product but that I would give them a discounted price, allow them to submit requirements and to be the early "beta" tester.

Sadly, what I have seen far more than the correct way is a Consulting firm develops a product for Client A and then keeps the code or some portion of it, and starts reselling it to other clients (or selling hours like they are developing it -- even worse). Which generally (unless contractually explicit as allowed) is a major violation and potentially illegal. But I had a lot of Clients come to me that had this happen to them, both by small boutique consulting firms and some of the largest firms. Sometimes I think it was sour grapes from the Client as it didn't really seem to have happened when we would look. But I lost track of how many times it had occurred in at least in some form. What was sad is firms wouldn't even try to cover their tracks, since we did a lot of ecommerce work we could see it literally in the javascript/html/css a lot of times, literally line for line.

<comment><AUTHOR> hm, yes makes sense.

I just had the feeling that the "we saw many clients having that problem" and the "we gave the clients discounts" didn't happen.

To me it seemed like a "this sucks, fix it please, we will pay you for it, but we don't want to maintain that software, so keep it."

<comment><USER2> Yea, I get that, unless you were in on client negotiations you probably wouldn't be aware of the details unless someone told you.

And it is always possible they had it built into the contract terms or were just being shady. In which case I would think they'd try to keep it quiet.</comment></comment></comment>


Pac-12 Conference getting thug-blocked by Tupac Website - <AUTHOR> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/02/pac-12-web-site-2pac-domain-fight/1

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the battle of two behemoths. College football and it's capitalistic ways vs. the rugged and raw 90's era hip-hop.</comment>


Olympic Proof That Drag Beats Thrust in the Longer Term - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/quality-functions/olympic-proof-that-drag-beats-thrust-in-the-longer-term-a716d7065dfe#.udutjm563 <comment><AUTHOR> Great article uses competitive swimming to explain why tech companies need to invest in quality to be competitive in the longer term.</comment>


A Quick Primer on Dig - <AUTHOR> https://mrkaran.dev/posts/dig-overview/ <comment><USER2> I just needed to do some dns lookups recently and since I never really adapted to dig and don't actually have it on minimal installs, I went straight to DoH (on quad9.)

Memorizing a starting DoH url and the parameters actually seems like a more universal solution to be ready to bootstrap to naming anywhere from now on.

At any rate maybe a good related topic or comparison possibility. I found it interesting that I couldn't find a simple cheat sheet and just had to wing it on the parameter names.

<comment><USER3> The "host" command is easier to use than dig, at least for me. [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/host-command-in-linux-with- exa...](https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/host-command-in-linux-with-examples/)

<comment><USER2> Thanks that actually is in my install and looks pretty good!

In recent years I've dealt with naming so little that I end up relying on getent, which is great until it's time to look into anything DNS specific.

<comment> mr-karan You can also take a look at `nslookup` which is fairly easy to use as well.

<comment><USER2> I was using nslookup for decades, but all the distributions were threatening that it was going away.. Looks like that decision got reversed? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Surprised the article doesn't mention getting all DNS records for a domain via a zone transfer:

dig axfr domain.com @nameserverforthedomain.com

* The nameserver has to be configured to allow zone transfers.

<comment><USER5> Most servers will refuse the request making it only very rarely helpful.

<comment><USER6> Unless it's misconfigured.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "But isn't that too long and painful (sorry for the pun) to type?" \- where's the pun?

<comment><USER8> The command prior to that text is:

      dig redis +short

So... "long" is the opposite of "short"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> tl;dr a restated man page for dig, a dns information tool. It provides the name servers between this computer and the target. A very quick read, ~400 words of his and ~200 words of dig output.</comment>


Facebook's iOS Shimmer written in JavaScript/Canvas - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tedtoy/ShimmerJS As some of you may know, Facebook recently open sourced their "shimmering" code used as a loading indicator. This is my attempt at duplicating the functionality in JavaScript and canvas. Any feedback on the code is very welcome!<p>The link is to the source. Here is the demo page: http://tedtoy.github.io/ShimmerJS/ <comment><USER2> tangent: there's a nice mouse position based shimmer effect on failoverflow's logo here: [http://fail0verflow.com/](http://fail0verflow.com/)

it's pretty clever how it actually works, in my opinion.</comment>


Show HN: Tweet Fighter II - <AUTHOR> http://www.tweetfighterii.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Some people at my company made this at a Hackathon event a few years ago and recently our company decided to make it into a full-fledged arcade cabinet.

See how we built the arcade cabinet and how the game works here: [https://medium.com/@ryanparr/tweet-fighter-how-our- company-m...](https://medium.com/@ryanparr/tweet-fighter-how-our-company-made- a-social-media-arcade-game-941011543f7e)</comment>


I redesigned a snow shovel (with some HN help) - <AUTHOR> http://jtame05.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/redesigning-a-snow-shovel/

<comment><USER2> Do you have to cite HN in your assignment?

<comment><AUTHOR> i probably will</comment></comment>


Cracking Crypto on Android Phones at Low Temperatures - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/16/frost_android_encryption_crack/ <comment><USER2> Yep, cooling down ram and reading it out later is a known and proven technique. Next!

</comment><comment><USER3> Actual bypass technique for iPhone comes out showing you can skip the lock screen with nothing more than a few touches, and all of a sudden an extremely technical and complex "hack" of Android is "discovered".

I'm getting out my tinfoil hat.</comment>


They Turn '49 Mercurys and Shelby Cobras into EVs, One Tesla Carcass at a Time - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-14/tesla-electric-vehicles-classic-cars <comment><USER2> The classic Porsches are what interest me. EVWest is building them. They successfully ran a converted BMW up Pike's peak. Their 912 conversion is pretty darn cool. The idea that Southern California will keep hot rodding and beautiful old cars alive into the future is welcomed.

<comment><USER3> Not too spendy[1] either, provided you already have a Porsche, that is.

1: [https://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=40&pro...](https://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=40&products_id=224)

<comment><USER4> Rated Torque: 120 Lb Ft

Rated Power: 71 HP

This is a lightweight electric pallet stacker motor. You dont want this in anything other than maybe a VW bug. Not to mention the most important and expensive part is missing, as always.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> cant wait to go to my local junk yard and grab EV parts to mod my datsun.

</comment><comment><USER6> They had me at Gattica.</comment>


Haskell 2010 Language Report - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/ <comment><AUTHOR> Here is a link to a PDF of the same report. <http://www.haskell.org/definition/haskell2010.pdf></comment>


Uber's New CEO - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.uber.com/ubers-new-ceo/ <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15121915)

</comment><comment><USER3> I would be surprised if this makes much of a difference. Even with Travis gone, the culture is part of the organization, and it would be incredibly difficult to change at this stage, without Uber effectively becoming a completely different company.

I know many people see long-term growth and potential in Uber, but I don't. They shook up the market which is a good thing, but at this point it feels like they're rearranging chairs on the titanic.

It might be years while this all plays out, but I see the absolute best case scenario for Uber is a Groupon type of situation - making lots of revenue, but kind of struggling. Without a drastic change to the business model, I can't see them ever having Facebook/Google/Microsoft like margins.

And as much as some in the tech community see self-driving cars as just around the corner, I would be very surprised if it's a common sight in 10 years. Maybe 20 years. It's not just the technology, but also the political and societal resistance to such a big change.

And if self-driving cabs is what's going to make Uber actually work for the long-term, well... I personally wouldn't bet on it. But they have, so let's see how that works out for them.

<comment><USER4> I agree that it may not make much of a difference. This seems to be more of a surface change — i.e. the business model won't change, but the faces behind the trouble are gone and now there is a new leader so everything slowly fades into the past, all of that fun stuff that happens as the dust settles after a period of scandal.

To the point about seeing potential in Uber: they definitely shook things up and grew quickly, but with the competition now growing in their sector, it seems that this growth has slowed a bit and sadly they have been in the news for wrong reasons. If this CEO is aiming for massive growth and pushing revenue way up, could be an uphill battle.

Okay, now with all that obvious stuff out of the way I have to ruminate on the idea of self-driving cars. On HN, with TechCrunch and speaking with friends I have who work in the Valley, you would think self-driving cars are around the corner, may be wifely adopted within 5-10 years and possibly could propel companies like Uber into the stratosphere of Google and Facebook.

My hesitation is that we here on HN and others who spend hours immersed in tech thinkpieces are not indicative of society at-large in certain ways. Something that seems like a fantastic idea to many of us may seem outright scary or "going too far" for the everyday person. I feel like self-driving cars may be one of these ideas. Who knows how long adoption and general acceptance could take? I have no data other than anecdotal to share, so I shall refrain. This is just my gut feeling.</comment></comment>


The United States Wiretapped The Mail Of The European Parliament - <AUTHOR> http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/24/the-united-states-wiretapped-the-mail-of-the-european-parliament/

<comment><USER2> I'd be more surprised with titles phrased "The United States _didn 't_ wiretap _____".</comment>


Reasons for iOS outperformance in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/05/reasons-for-ios-outperformance-in-the-us/

<comment><USER2> Horace addresses the mechanism, but does not list the core:

Its about culture- The US is a lead consumer market-Consumer behaviour originates in the US and spreads/mutates to the rest of the world. The iOS is the most sophisticated computer in the world. Rest of the world are almost a decade behind in adoption:)

All the points he listed are outcomes of this:</comment>


Apple Helps Push U.S. Watch Sales to Biggest Drop in Seven Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-07/apple-helps-push-u-s-watch-sales-to-biggest-drop-in-seven-years <comment><USER2> Apple doesn't say how many watches they've sold, but...

> _That would suggest the company may have sold at least 1.9 million watches, > assuming the Apple Watch had an average selling price of $499. NPD estimates > the traditional watch industry sold 927,500 timepieces in June in the U.S._

So the Apple is estimated to have sold twice as many of their Apple Watches as traditional watches have been sold? And traditional watch sales only declined 11%?

I don't know that Apple are eating traditional watches so much as providing a new accessory to own.

<comment><USER3> If anything happens to the traditional watch industry it will be over a long period once people are conditioned into having something with more utility on their wrist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If Apple is killing watches it is not because of Apple watch, it is because if you have an iPhone you don't need a watch.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure about that explanation. Clocks were very common on cell phones long before the iPhone came along.

The iPhone greatly changed the type of cell phone people carried, but I don't think it changed the number of people who carried cell phones, so would it really have had much influence on whether or not people used a watch?

<comment><USER6> >>I'm not sure about that explanation. Clocks were very common on cell phones long before the iPhone came along.

But people weren't using "dumb phones" nearly to the same extent that they use smartphones today.

If you had a Nokia 3210, the only time you used the phone was for calls and text messages (and also for playing Snake, but that took up the whole screen and you couldn't see what time it was).

<comment><USER7> Eh ? You took the phone out to check the time as same as you do now in the smartphone era and I remember people stopping to wear watches for the same reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _The market for watches that cost less than $1,000 is most at risk, as consumers in that price range have indicated they're the most likely to buy an Apple Watch_

This makes perfect sense. IPhones are already a status signal, while sub $1000 watches are a pretty ambiguous status signal. If you knew enough about watches to tell a $100 watch from a $500 watch, you probably wouldn't be impressed by either.

</comment><comment> SG- I really hate how that site plays video automatically and is using something to hide the player controls along with the ability to pause.

</comment><comment><USER9>
        U.S. Watch Sales

...including the Apple Watch?

<comment><USER10> Nope. Only watches sold at department and jewelry stores (also excludes Amazon and Walmart).

<comment><USER11> > (also excludes Amazon and Walmart)

What value is this again? That seems like the majority of the market right there.

<comment><USER12> Watches are a niche market with die-hard enthusiasts and fervent collectors. If you are planning on purchasing a high-end watch, you're more likely to step into a jewelry or watch-only shop, or watch specialist or distributor. Big box stores simply don't carry these types of watches nor are you getting the best deal for one if you find them there. Not to mention, you're at risk that it might be a fake. We're talking about brands such as Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, JLC, Vacheron Constantin, Rolex, and Hublot.

<comment><USER11> How many people actually buy high-end watches, though? Surely it's a tiny portion of the consumer base. I would also highly, highly doubt that most would want to replace a rolex with a watch that is highly likely to die, break, or obsolesce.

Maybe the watch market is dying because it's only useful as a status item.

<comment><USER12> It's not simply just a status symbol, it's saying you appreciate the finer things in life and that you are someone interesting. In the world of business, having these accessories and toys can be very beneficial to your career and networking. Unfortunately, that's just show society works these days and has been working for the past few centuries. Being able to wear a Audemars Piguet into a restaurant and having the gentleman across the room come by and compliment your watch can open many doors. But that's not say that's why most people wear these high-end watches. I don't think it clicks for most people until you actually wear one of these things on your wrists. And you're simply a watch enthusiast or you aren't one--many would argue to say its in their blood. The way I see it, watches are an important investment and something that every man (and woman) should have in their arsenal.

And touching on just how big the market actually is, big enough to warrant VC funding: [http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/11/kevin-roses-watchville- and-...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/11/kevin-roses-watchville-and-watch- blog-hodinkee-find-the-time-to-merge/)

<comment><USER11> > it's saying you appreciate the finer things in life and that you are someone > interesting

Another way of saying it is "you spend your money on worthless crap". This is emphatically not what I think of you, understand, just that wearing expensive jewelry may open doors, but it will also cause people to judge you. Perhaps rightfully so.

Personally, I would never want to think that anything I earned was through cultural manipulation. Of course, I can't help it, but I also can't help being a white male.

I really take issue with people who attempt to argue that jewelry is anything but a frivolous luxury.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Swiss Watch Exports up 5,1% in June 2015. I guess that is also because of the apple watch then :)

Source: [http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=comm_150606_a.pdf](http://www.fhs.ch/scripts/getstat.php?file=comm_150606_a.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER14> and here i am waiting for my huawei watch</comment>


How to get up right away when your alarm goes off - <AUTHOR> http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/04/how-to-get-up-right-away-when-your-alarm-goes-off/

<comment><USER2> When I started going to the gym early, before work, getting out of bed at 6am was the hardest part. What helped me transition to being a morning person was to buy one of these: [http://www.amazon.com/BioBrite-Sunrise-Clock-Radio- Platinum/...](http://www.amazon.com/BioBrite-Sunrise-Clock-Radio- Platinum/dp/B00196LFJY/ref=sr_1_2?s=hpc&ie=UTF8&qid=1286823030&sr=1-2)

It's a much more pleasant way to wake up in the morning, as it mirrors nature. I've found that after using it consistently for about a week, my sleep cycle stabilizes on the schedule I want, and I can usually get up naturally when I need to and beat my back-up buzzing alarm.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems that the device actually lights up to help you wake up. Does it also mimic the sun's early-morning wavelengths? From what I understand, the color changes from early morning to noon to afternoon, etc. and the body is adapted to react differently during each phase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I tried this for about three weeks and then stopped. Maybe I didn't practice enough. I think he's got the right idea though.</comment>


Seene - share life in 3D (webgl) - <AUTHOR> http://seene.co/

<comment><USER2> My team has been working on Seene relentless, so happy it is finally out!

<comment><USER3> Great job :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, this churns out surprisingly good looking models.</comment>


Thailand legalizes medicinal marijuana in New Year's 'gift' - <AUTHOR> https://www.dw.com/en/thailand-legalizes-medicinal-marijuana-in-new-years-gift/a-46858806 <comment><USER2> The ruling junta is pulling out all the stops to garner support before the February elections (first one since the latest coup 4 years ago). They've rigged it so heavily in their favor and they still seem to worry it may not be enough. Literally calling it a gift takes away any pretense that this isn't what this is about.

<comment><USER3> A truly devious political machination: doing what your constituents want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Politics aside, this is quite a 7mu turn from a place where weed (and any other drug) would previously net you the death penalty.

<comment><USER4> I can't edit my comment but I misread. Death penalty is in other Asian countries, not Thailand.</comment></comment>


Rust Optimizations That C++ Can't Do (Version 2) - <AUTHOR> http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/04/rust-optimizations-that-c-cant-do_5.html <comment><USER2> Note that if you're very explicit about _v_ not changing in the C++ code, like so:

        const long w = v;
        for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i) {
          sum += w;
          callback();
        }

...then clang++ generates the following:

        .LBB0_1:
            call    rbx
            dec     ebp
            jne     .LBB0_1
            imul    rax, r14, 100

It optimised away all of the additions, calling _callback_ in a loop and then multiplying _w_ with 100. This is something the rust compiler doesn't currently do.

What this boils down to is that there isn't a good way of telling the compiler that the content of a reference _will never change_ in C++. As noted in the other thread ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14040021](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14040021)), _const_ says that the current context can't change it, but someone else might still be able to.</comment>


The Periodic Table of Videos - <AUTHOR> http://www.periodicvideos.com/index.htm <comment><USER2> Pretty good these, the same people also do this series: <http://sixtysymbols.com/>

I studied Physics @ Nottingham so pretty cool to see my lecturers getting involved!

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool idea! I randomly clicked on chromium (<http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/024.htm>) - gotta love the guy who has "very warm feelings about it"!

EDIT: Now I watched the potassium video (<http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/019.htm>). If I understand him correctly, the same guy seems to think that potash is called so because it contains potassium. Potassium is called kalium in Latin (from Arabic al- qalyah, "plant ashes" according to Wikipedia). I'm certain it's the same in English (potash -> potassium) and not the other way around.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm from Nottingham (I live in London now), so it's nice to see the University getting a mention on HN :D

While I didn't study there, I have seen the professor (on the far right of the images at the top) walking around, I think he lived near a place I used to work at.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's far more interesting than it has any right to be. I went in intending to just see what it was about, and left a half hour later after bookmarking it.

Thoroughly entertaining and informative.

</comment><comment><USER6> cool, I know so little about materials. Time to watch one of these day.

</comment><comment><USER7> I watched sodium video. Guy dropped a chunk of it in water and told that it is going to explode. Duh. Had been impressed had they bothered to tell what exactly was the reaction and why was the heat generated. Instead they laughed, and laughed. btw, I understand basic chemistry so I dont really need explanation.

<comment><USER8> this reminded me of highschool. we used to take sodium from the lab and put them on water and watch it explode, fun times :)</comment></comment>


Greece emerges from eurozone bailout programme - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45243088 <comment><USER2> Having just read _Adults In The Room: My Battle With Europe 's Deep Establishment_ By Yanis Varoufakis I was interested how this was written up. Varoufakis obviously writes from a non-objective, polarised position, but I would expect he feels glad the Greek state has survived and come through, although would criticize the outcome regarding the Greeks who made the sacrifices, and the Greeks who "got away with it" from the banking, fintech and corporate sector.

I recommend following the three BBC links downstream of this headline story.</comment>


Random walk illustrated with D3 - <AUTHOR> http://mixedbit.org/blog/2013/02/10/random_walk_illustrated_with_d3.html

<comment><USER2> The code for this is neat and impressively short, anyone looking to see the power of D3 should check it out: <https://gist.github.com/wrr/4750218>

My only suggestion is that .data([color_idx]) would be more idiomatic (I think) if it were .datum(color_idx)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It is now changed to datum().

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "A moral of this is that any lucky series will always eventually be reversed and an expected outcome of a random walk is always 0. Or in other words - don't play roulette ;)"

The _apriori_ expected outcome of a random walk is zero. The expected outcome of a random walk from a given position is the position itself. So no, 'any lucky series' will not 'always eventually be reversed'. I'm afraid that's not how probability works.

But you still shouldn't play roulette.

<comment><AUTHOR> The way I understand this, is that for a random walk of infinite length, your expected outcome is always 0. It doesn't matter that you started very lucky by winning 10 games in a row, because if you play an infinite number of times, you will balance this by loosing 10 games in a row (you'll do it an infinite number of times).

In real life people usually don't play an infinite number of times, but the more you play, the better the theory approximates your final outcome. After very large number of games, you will very likely encounter a bad luck series.

This is a bit counter intuitive, because according to the theory, there is a difference between a person that enters a fair game with 10$ and a person that enters with 1$ and wins 9$ in the first 9 games. The first person is expected to finish with 10$, the second with 1$, even though both have the same amount of money at some point. But laws that involve infinity are often counter intuitive.

<comment><USER3> >The way I understand this, is that for a random walk of infinite length, your expected outcome is always 0. It doesn't matter that you started very lucky by winning 10 games in a row, because if you play an infinite number of times, you will balance this by loosing 10 games in a row (you'll do it an infinite number of times).

You understand it incorrectly.

>This is a bit counter intuitive, because according to the theory, there is a difference between a person that enters a fair game with 10$ and a person that enters with 1$ and wins 9$ in the first 9 games. The first person is expected to finish with 10$, the second with 1$, even though both have the same amount of money at some point. But laws that involve infinity are often counter intuitive.

That is exactly the example I would give of why your understanding is flawed. This is not 'counter-intuitive', it is a clear contradiction of basic logic. You are making a fairly common error in confusing a priori probability with conditional probability: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamblers_fallacy>. A standard phrase used by gamblers to refer to this truth is that "the dice have no memory."

If you start a random walk from Chicago, you are expected to end up in Chicago. If you start a random walk from New York, you are expected _then_ to end up in New York. If you, later on that same walk, notice that you are currently in Chicago, you can start expecting yourself to end up in Chicago, despite that your random walk started in New York: you have observed the actual events (collapsed the waveform), and now you have just taken _a walk_.

This is the core of the misconception: "The first person is expected to finish with 10$, the second with 1$, even though both have the same amount of money at some point." The first person _was_ expected to finish with 10$, and the second _was_ expected to finish with 1$, but after the second player has won 9 games, he is _then_ expected to finish with 10$, and anyone standing around watching who still has faith in their earlier expectation is uninformed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this explanation, my understanding was indeed flawed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Too bad this doesn't work in IE since it loads JS from github:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7180099/including-js- from...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7180099/including-js-from-raw- github-com)

At least in IE 10, it would work if it wasn't for this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing this out, it is now fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting fact about the interesting facts at the bottom: each point is reached an infinite number of times only when a random walk is performed in one or two-dimensional space. For dimensions >=3, an infinite walk visits each point a finite number of times, which means that, while the random walker may return to the starting point one or more times after starting, it will eventually wander off forever. This has been described as, "A drunk man will find his way home, but a drunk bird may get lost forever."

<comment><USER6> Or, in human terms, you can eventually find your car in a 2D parking lot, but not a 3D parking garage (as per Seinfeld <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parking_Garage>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> and with Mathematica: ... <http://taliesinb.net/visualizing-random-walks>

</comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't work on my Windows Firefox... got it working on Chrome though.</comment>


SpaceX Super Heavy Starship Compendium - <AUTHOR> https://www.elonx.net/super-heavy-starship-compendium/ <comment><AUTHOR> I spend a decent amount of time following their progress and the corresponding reddit. I still found a whole bunch of new interesting tidbits sprinkled throughout. I can't wait to see how this progresses over the next few years.</comment>