Apple, Be Afraid: China's Xiaomi Going Global - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/04/27/apple-be-afraid-chinas-xiaomi-going-global/?partner=yahootix

<comment><USER2> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Forbes really should just stop writing tech articles.

1) The article itself notes that Xaiomi's flagship phone is _already_ facing declining sales in China (Apple is still increasing sales there, so who should be worried again?).

2) It's running Android - the closest equivalent product is the Samsung Galaxy S5, surely the headline should be warning Samsung, not Apple (Apple has a nice competitive moat by having their own OS / AppStore ecosystem).

3) Speaking of ecosystems, does this thing have Google Play (I looked on their site, but couldn't get a clear answer - no Google app logos though...)? If not, it's really going to struggle in Western markets.

<comment><USER3> > surely the headline should be warning Samsung, not Apple

Even then, Xaiomi surely couldn't compete with Samsung on pricing or advertising, given Samsung's huge advantage as a component manufacturer.

<comment><USER4> Samsung choose margins over industry-changingly competitive pricing though. They price like an iPhone, not a Nexus or from the article a Xiaomi.

<comment><USER5> And at that, they don't have massively high margins. Their marketing spend is absolutely huge, and would impede them from competing directly on price.

<comment><USER3> Good point, hadn't thought of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cupertino should be worried. Acer's laptop is cheaper than the MacBook Air -- 1,999 yuan versus 4,488—and better—the Acer has a larger and sharper screen and a camera with higher-density pixels. Unless you insist on having a depiction of a piece of fruit on your device, you will go with the Acer offering every time.

Edit: Satire

<comment><USER6> One thing we should've learned from apple long ago, is that hard numbers (larger, sharper screens, more GHz, more RAM) do not make a better product.

I won't change my macbook air for a laptop that will have a weaker construction, a fire-prone battery, and a less thought design. (I'm over- generalizing, just making a point)

The piece of fruit is just a nice final touch.

<comment><USER7> Yep as I always tell nagging people; give me a laptop of Macbook (pro/air) specs and quality for less than the equivalent non Apple one. There isn't much and most simply are not on par; feel like they will fall apart any moment like the Ativ 9 plus, which is actually more expensive anyway.

<comment><USER8> A second-hand Thinkpad.

<comment><USER7> Well which one? I like them and they are nice, but doesn't really compare to the air or the pro retina in handling. But maybe you have something in mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Saying "you will go with the Xiaomi offering every time" based on just three factors (price, screen size and camera quality) is over-the-top, hugely simplistic and ignores phenomenally important elements like marketing and the actual software on the phone.

<comment><USER10> Not to mention that:

1) Screen size is a personal preference, bigger != better. And even if it was so, Apple is preparing a new iPhone with a larger screen to be shown in June's WWDC according to all rumors.

2) Price is irrelevant if the devices are not comparable.

3) The iPhone regularly beats all other phones in camera reviews. If it's worse than anything, it is marginally worse. And after you get your photos in, the iPhone has crazy good apps for managing them, from VSCO and Camera+, to Photoshop and Lightroom Mobile.

4) And all that are for last years model. In less than 2 months there will be a NEW iPhone announced.

<comment><USER8> >bigger != better

It's hard to ignore the hint of irony here when it's the Westerners' turn to tout this line.

<comment><USER10> Actually not a westerner :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I lived in China I owned one of the first generation xiaomi phones. It was charging on my desk and suddenly it started smoking. I quickly unplugged it and found all the around the usb port was melted. I posted it on Chinese twitter and it went quite viral. Then they kept badgering me to take it down and gave me a refund.

So unless they have improved their product quality and their testing I don't think Apple have anything to worry about.

Having said that it seems people like disposable goods these days as long as they are cheap...

</comment><comment><USER12> It's all about branding. So far there is not a single Chinese company that has been able to build up their own brand from scratch to become a leader in the consumer space. The strategy therefore is to buy out established Japanese and European companies for their brand value - but none of these candidates have the reputation and brand capability to get even close to Apple or Google.

<comment><USER13> What about Lenovo?

There is quite a non-trivial number of Chinese firms that have managed to do so, but admittedly not in the consumer space.

<comment><USER14> Lenovo didn't do it from scratch. Lenovo bought IBM's PC business.

<comment><USER15> Lenovo had a quite well known brand before they bought IBM's PC business. It was what made them enough money to buy IBM's PC business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Forbes, Be Afraid: Business Insider has Gone Global.

</comment><comment><USER17> "announced [...] that it is planning [...] this year." I'd be scared, too, about this vagueness.

</comment><comment><USER18> Apple and Samsung, LG, HTC, Microsoft, etc

</comment><comment><USER19> I doubt there afraid form a relatively unknown chinese company who has little to no exposure outside china.

Not to mention the privacy concerns of a company operating in a country where laws/company/interests and national security interests are wrapped in the same corruption.

<comment><USER20> > Not to mention the privacy concerns of a company operating in a country > where laws/company/interests and national security interests are wrapped in > the same corruption.

Are we talking about the US or China here?</comment></comment>


iPhoneX Face ID let other person to unlock (Not twin) - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7atwap/update_iphonex_face_id_fail/ <comment><USER2> So, as usual, this is clickbait and factually wrong.

While I agree that I was surprised for a moment that the iPhone uses successful unlocks via passcode as an opportunity to train the Face ID model, it's no "flaw" and it certainly does not allow "other person to unlock".

iPhones are single user devices. If two people use them (authorized via passcode) then the iPhone creates a FaceID model mixing both faces.

A bit unexpected, but no security flaw.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am also surprised. I will remove "flaw" word. But I think it is flaw. I already setup the face ID so it should not unlock with other user ideally.

All you saying about ML is correct but it is big flaw itself.

<comment><USER2> If you don't want other people to unlock your phone, don't give them your passcode.

Seriously. Consider the situation where this behaviour wouldn't exist. Your brother cannot login using FaceID, but he still can: with your passcode.

There is simply no credible scenario where any of this might matter.

<comment><USER3> It's definitely a flaw with real scenarios.

One example: Ending a relationship. You likely share the passcode in practice while in a relationship. After a breakup you may change it, but your ex- partner still has access because the iPhone learned their face.

Another: Teen migrates from supervised access to the phone to private one. Not aware that parents still have access, even with changed code.

I'm sure there are more cases if you think of people close to you that you don't trust completely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Previous video [https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7anj9f/iphonex_face...](https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7anj9f/iphonex_face_id_fail/?st=j9mmw6vx&sh=97e024ac)</comment>


Do libertarians care about freedom? - <AUTHOR> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/07/the-limits-of-libertarianism/

<comment><USER2> _They need to come clean: either they really care about freedom, in which case they need to support the rights of workers in the workplace_

How exactly where the worker's rights violated? Was there a contract or agreement somewhere saying that he was guaranteed perpetual employment, or that drug use (or lack there of) was explicitly NOT to be considered a factor in his continued employment? If not, there's really no valid argument that his rights were violated.

And here's the problem that libertarians always struggle with: _real_ freedom has implications that aren't always obvious, and that can - on occasion - clash with our preconceived biases regarding what is "right" or "fair" or "Just".

I will posit that a "free society" is one where nobody is using force or violence to compel someone to do something against their will. In this world, an employee is free to seek whatever employment he wants, and take or reject any given employment situation without needing to request approval from anyone. He/she can also quit whenever desired. But the flip side is that the employer is also free to end the situation when they want, free from any compelling outside force.

So if you smoke weed and your boss fires you, it doesn't matter if "the state" considers it legal or not. What matters is what your employer thinks. You aren't entitled to a certain job for perpetuity, regardless of your actions. Actions have consequences, and that's a fundamental tenet of libertarian thinking.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps the author considers recreational drug use to be a form of protected activity such as religion or a form of protected diversity akin to sexual orientation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about the right to free association? Suppose you had a girl/boyfriend that was using drugs, unbeknownst to you, and that this was a deal-breaker for you. Who would argue that you have no legal right to break up with them once you found out?

You have a moral right to choose the people you hang around, because the consequences to your own life can be disastrous. Can you imagine landing in jail (and the incredible strain of testifying in a trial) because you were used by your friends as a getaway driver, without your knowledge? This kind of thing actually happens in real life: [http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2014/07/18/main_li...](http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2014/07/18/main_line_times/news/doc53c90720bf986205030311.txt)

Given that each of us has the right to associate freely on a personal basis, why should that right be so blithely ignored when the relationship in question involves money?

Granted, pot is not nearly as dangerous as other drugs can be (including alcohol.) However, the whole question of the danger involved is best decided by the individual, not the group. After all, it is _your_ life that's on the line when dealing with others, not the group's.

</comment><comment><USER5> little bit of a stretch. I wouldn't want a security guard drunk either. Doesn't mean I don't think workers should have rights.</comment>


Paul Buchheit: When people don't know how to change something - <AUTHOR> http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-people-dont-know-how-to-change.html <comment><USER2> What do you guys think about NLP? Wikipedia says that it is still scientifically unvalidated.

I'm not so sure what to think of all these self-help bestseller books/systems that hit the market every so often. They seem to have really high ratings on Amazon. But it feels like these guys are gaming the Amazon rating system.

Which reminds me, we saw a post about the 4-Hour Workweek just a few days back.

How does all this compare to classics like Dale Carnegie's books or for that matter Benjamin Franklin's books?

<comment><USER3> The world is more interesting if you don't immediately classify everything as true or false. I found the book interesting, even if it lacks Wikipedia's imprimatur.

<comment><USER2> What you say is true. However, my reference to Wikipedia's view on NLP by no means meant anything conclusive or dismissive. Given Wikipedia's social aspect, it was just another way of validating that others too shared my deep suspicion of and disillusionment with yet another self-help system.

Surely you have felt this frustration while having to deal with these books/systems yourself?

<comment><USER3> I don't _have_ to deal with any of it. Someone recommended the book, and so I bought a copy. It's interesting and entertaining to read.

Bandler clearly doesn't like psychotherapists, and so it's no surprise that they don't like him.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wondering Why You Can't Pre-Order an iPad? It Isn't Legal Yet  - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/wondering-why-you-cant-pre-order-the-ipad-it-isnt-legal-yet/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29 <comment><USER2> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1089478>

This would've been detected by the system I outlined here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012215></comment>


Windows 1.0: Still playing Reversi after all these years - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/slideshows/2011/052611-windows-1.html#slide1 25 years after it came out, it's still possible to run Windows 1.0 in a virtual machine. While you can't connect to the Internet, you can play Reversi and see the first version of Notepad - which is pretty similar to the one in Windows 7. Here's a look at the first version of Windows. <comment><USER2> "Early versions of Windows also came with "Write," a word processor that had more features than Notepad but was later phased out in favor of Microsoft Word."

Looks to still be there to me, as WordPad. And "write.exe" at the command line still launches it!

"win100.ovl" won't load because it's not an executable program, but part of the Windows startup routine, storing some device drivers for basic hardware (keyboard, mouse, etc).

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember Windows 1 and it wasn't that great. I used GEM at the time and it was quite superior to both Windows 1 and 2. I am not quite certain why it failed in the marketplace. Apple sued them for look and feel and it brought updates to a halt and that might have been the reason. I was quite suprised to find that GEM is still around as an open source project <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGEM> if you want to take a look.

</comment><comment><USER4> Kinda cute but looks more like fed by MSFT PR

<comment><USER2> Looks more like Network World author submitting all his articles to HN.</comment></comment>


The Tragedy of Student Loans: We've Lost the Dream - <AUTHOR> http://rippedenvelope.com/post/53181388611/the-tragedy-of-student-loans-weve-lost-the-dream

<comment><USER2> Great perspective on one of the most important issues Gen Y needs to address.</comment>


The phone that almost ruined my social life - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/the-phone-that-almost-ruined-my-social-life/p <comment><USER2> stray "p" at the end of the URL

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, resubmitted.</comment></comment>


Changeset 191644: Implement viewport-width-based fast-click heuristic - <AUTHOR> http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/191644 <comment><USER2> what a brain-f#* of inconsistent behavior.

this is the result of one side of the architects wanting fast click and the other side wanting double tap-zoom. and then the group just giving up and accepting the worst middle ground possible just to quit the pointless discussion.

Good UI is consistent. this is as annoying as writing in a office application before disabling all the "smart" text replacement helpers

</comment><comment><USER3> Wouldn't it be better to just implement W3C Recommendation Pointer Events[0] and its touch-action CSS control and to stop trying to kludge things based on viewport META tags?

[0] [http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/](http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/)

</comment><comment><USER4> It is wrong on so many levels. And there is going to be a checkbox for that too, to confuse users even further.</comment>


6 things I look forward to in CSS level 4 - <AUTHOR> http://zerosixthree.se/6-things-look-forward-css-level-4/

<comment><USER2> That's neat! I'm not a web development fan but I'll definitely give it a try sometime soon. I really really hate HTML, I don't know I can code easily but I have a really hard time with HTML and CSS; Does someone knows a neat resource for this ? I don't wanna just mess around every time I need to do something I haven't done before. I need a lot of time to center something vertically and that just drives me nuts.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is pretty neat

[http://give-n-go.tumblr.com/](http://give-n-go.tumblr.com/)

Basically, it's a collection of dribbble designs implemented in HTML, CSS & JS. They are all somewhat small so it's a good learning experience.

Also [http://codepen.io](http://codepen.io).

<comment><USER2> Thanks! Those are really good resources. :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ill-founded arguments about grammar - <AUTHOR> http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/arguments/

<comment><USER2> Oddly enough, past usage is one of the best arguments against prescriptivist proclamations of right and wrong. We find that the "aks" pronunciation of ask has an unbroken lineage and usage from African American Vernacular English to Southern American English to Old English. Nouns can be verbed all kinds of ways and often have been if you check the OED. Being aware and in control of your verbal 'appearance' is useful, particularly in formal situations. However, smugly deriding the grammar or spelling of someone who has communicated with practical clarity is a despicable and misguided sport.

<comment><USER3> The phrase "verbal appearance" is genius and really summarizes my feelings on grammar. One shouldn't dismiss a person because of his appearance, but one would be wise to consider that he's more likely to be taken seriously if his appearance is up to par. The idea applies just as well to grammar.

<comment><USER4> Only if you take "appearance is up to par" to mean "fitting in with the crowd" or else you are swapping objective judgements on grammar for objective judgments on clothes and grooming, and begging the question.

<comment><USER5> Inasmuch as the crowd you choose to fit into can correlate with other behaviors it may be perfectly reasonable to make objective biases based on appearance (verbal or otherwise).

When push comes to shove and you need to actually decide what your assumption is, you're going to assume something, it may at least have the best possible shot at being accurate.

Even Jeff Foxworthy would often joke that he wouldn't want to be operated on by someone who talks like he does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One point that most grammar discussions seem to miss is that grammar is a _model_ of how people communicate, not the real thing. When a construction is labeled "ungrammatical," then, it could be, as the prescriptivists would have us believe, that the construction is indeed poor at communicating the intended meaning and side-tones. But it could also be that the construction is perfectly effective and the model has simply failed to capture that aspect of reality.

A large part of rhetoric, for example, is breaking grammar for effect.

<comment><USER7> So if breaking grammar provides certain effects, wouldn't the standardization of such constructs into canon grammar diminish the effect?

<comment><USER6> _I came, I saw, I conquered._

Those words are powerful, but not because they form a comma splice. That is, their power does _not_ derive from failing the model's rules. Rather, the model's rules fail to capture that those words are powerful. (Or even allowed.)

Again, grammar is a _model_. A model that people _don't actually use_ to communicate with one another. Nobody hears words and constructs a parse tree to figure out what they mean. So what's encoded in the model (or not) has little effect on the effect that the words actually have.

Change the model all you want. Nobody will hear any differently.

EDIT: P.S. When I wrote that rhetoric was "breaking grammar for effect," I didn't mean to imply that the effect of rhetoric came from breaking grammar. Rather, I meant that the focus in rhetoric is on the effect and, because grammar fails to admit many effective phrasings, rhetoric necessarily "breaks grammar" from the outset.

<comment><USER8> But would "Came I saw, conquered I I" have made as much of an impression? Deviating from a ruleset is different from failing to adhere to it at all.

<comment><USER6> My claim wasn't that there was no rhyme or reason to human communication but rather that grammar does not capture that rhyme and reason, just a small part of it.

That is, there is no "rule set" in reality. Nevertheless, you can create a rule set that describes _some_ of reality. Just don't start thinking it's the real thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does descriptivism deal with people who are just plain wrong? To pick one example among many, a recent trend I've noticed is people who use "equivocate" when they really mean "equate". Should they be corrected, or should we simply accept that because a lot of people are doing it and we can understand from context what they really mean, it's now an appropriate usage? Where exactly is that line drawn?

<comment><USER10> If they're understood, they're not wrong. If they're causing confusion (and you can understand them only because the rest of the sentence makes it clear - you would understand just as well if they had said "foo" rather than "equate") then that's worth questioning. The way we use many words now (condone and fulsome spring immediately to mind) would have reasonably been described as "plain wrong" twenty years ago.

<comment><USER8> Well, given context, they could use any word at all, even the opposite of the correct one, and could be understood. The problem is that it seems foolish to allow that the person is correct in using the incorrect word, or that the word in question now means the same as the correct word. Effectiveness is a continuum, too - would they have communicated more effectively by using the correct word? Then that word is preferable, though not necessary to impart the meaning in the greater context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If neither usage (#1) nor logic (#2) are acceptable authorities, then language becomes an arbitrary construct subject to everyone's whims. As the author promptly proceeds to show with his unsupported assertion that " _different than_ is perfectly fine".

<comment><USER12> But language _is_ an arbitrary construct subject wholly to societal agreement. That's why language evolves over time, why different dialects of a given language develop, etc.

 __Edit: Spelling __

<comment><USER11> Web standards were also initially an arbitrary social construct. That doesn't mean we want them to change every year according to the latest popular fancies.

<comment><USER13> Yet they do. Browser vendors are implementing new extensions all the time, and arguably for better reasons than people changing the language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I agree with some of his ideas (despite being something of a prescriptivist when it comes to my own writing), they're not exactly "ill- founded" as much as "the author disagrees with them."

"language is not a logical system" -_communication_ is not a logical system, but language is.

<comment><USER14> > "language is not a logical system" -_communication_ is not a logical system, > but language is.

Care to explain this?

From most NLP classes I have taken and work I have done, I have always understood that languages are logical only in a very loose sense of that word. It is pretty hard to express grammar systems in formal logic for most practical human languages as far as I know.

Maybe I am missing something?

<comment><USER8> Language is systematic communication, and while it's imperfect, it has basic logical underpinnings. The fact that some sentences and words work and others don't is proof enough of that. It's arbitrary, yes, like any artificial system, but it's a system nevertheless. Deviations from the system as we understand it ("effective" but not "right," as suggested above) help further define it. This is all just my personal ideas about it, though, not like I've made a study of it my whole life.

<comment><USER15> > it has basic logical underpinnings

I'm not sure what you mean. More specifically, what logical underpinnings does language have that communication doesn't? For me, communication is the transfer of ideas from one brain to another, and I would define language as the means of doing so. So you can't have one without the other.

<comment><USER8> Spoken and written language are one means of communicating ideas. I can communicate anger with my fist or love with a kiss (or vice versa). The subset of communication we call language is a systematization by which we can communicate specific ideas using a specific, mutually agreed-upon method. The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be sure it is understood by both parties.

<comment><USER15> But I don't see a kiss as not-language: it's body language. It still requires agreement between the parties on what it means, and it doesn't require any logic to be understood - just a common psychological framework plus similar cultural experiences. And same with the raised fist.

> The method must be logical in its formation because otherwise it can't be > sure it is understood by both parties.

Again I don't know what you mean by "logical". Logic is universal and absolute and doesn't change. But while languages each have an internal consistency, they're all very different from each other, and each of them evolves quite drastically given enough time.

How could language have ever developed if it needed to be logical for it to be understood? Seems to me all you need is a bit of empathy and some dexterous body parts (fingers/arms, vocal cords/tongue) to build a real language starting from pointing and gesturing and grunting, none of which is at all systematic.

Over time, I think modern languages developed that internal consistency because their users needed to express more and more complicated ideas. If the idea I'm conveying to you has lots of actors and actions and nuanced imagery in it, things have to be orderly and highly patterned-based or else I know that you will not understand. So we all mutually agreed on an arbitrary system for these things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Stephen Fry's discussion on language and grammar pedants (<https://youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY>).</comment>


Regex Woes - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Clbuttic-Mistake-.aspx <comment><USER2> I was reading a forum post a few weeks ago that referred to the decocker on a certain model of handgun. It was, of course, helpfully filtered to become the "de __ __er".</comment>


What randomisation can and cannot do - <AUTHOR> https://voxeu.org/article/what-randomisation-can-and-cannot-do-2019-nobel-prize <comment><USER2> An interesting summary of development economics. The overriding theme seems to be controlling for effects. Randomization can account for some effects but often the results are applied far outside the scope of the trial, and people are intelligent so sometimes the randomization is not effective.

</comment><comment><USER3> What they achieve in the real world is good. But I can't see the scientific merit. Doesn't the actual work lie in making organisations accept change?

</comment><comment><USER4> Banerjee and Duflo wrote a great book, _Poor Economics_ , if you're interested in their work on development economics.</comment>


Critical responses to NYT story on datacenter energy waste - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57518536-92/nyt-story-on-data-center-waste-scares-some-frustrates-others/

<comment><AUTHOR> The Forbes article is also interesting reading:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/danwoods/2012/09/23/why-the- new-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danwoods/2012/09/23/why-the-new-york- times-story-power-pollution-and-the-internet-is-a-sloppy-failure/)

I like this comment by Ludavico Corde:

 _The other thing that article totally was ignorant of, is just how far servers have come in saving power. You mentioned visualization which is growing by leaps and bounds. But what about processor (CPU) stepping technology? I modern server chip like the Intel Xeon can scale way back on power when it is idle or at a low utilization. Or using server blades like IBM Blade Servers? Modern class servers like HP Proliant, Dell, IBM Blade Servers, are engineered to the ninth degree with power management technology. To insure less power is consumed when the server workload is low._

I'd long assumed that servers, even commodity hardware, were good at reducing power use during periods of low utilization. How true is this? And I'm also given to understand that air-conditioning uses a lot of power, so I'm wondering if coolant systems do any better.

Overall if the energy used during/for computation is really only 6-12%, then there's probably a good amount of room for improvement. A good electrical engineer with awareness of industry practices and metrics could probably tell us whether there actually is a lot of waste going on, or if these numbers are to be expected due to practical limits. Maybe Google, Facebook and Amazon are running tight ships, but I can imagine inefficient practices going on in less well run datacenters.</comment>


Untapped asset : The $3 Trillion value of US Enterprise documents - <AUTHOR> http://www.mkbergman.com/82/untapped-assets-the-3-trillion-value-of-us-enterprise-documents/

<comment><USER2> Conclusion (in case you felt it was tl;dr): The value of documents – in their creation, access and use – can indeed be measured

The information contained within U.S. enterprise documents represents about a third of gross domestic product, or an amount of about $3.3 trillion annually

Some 25% of all of these expenditures lend themselves to actionable improvements

There are perhaps on the order of 10 billion documents created annually in the U.S.

Corporate data doubles every six to eight months; 85% of this data is contained in documents

Ninety to 97 percent of enterprises cannot estimate how much they spend on producing documents each year

Document creation is about 2-3 times more important – from an embedded cost standpoint – than document handling

It costs, on average, $350 to create a 'typical' document The total potential benefit from practical improvements in document access and use to the U.S economy is on the order of $800 billion annually, or about 8% of GDP

For the 1,000 largest U.S. firms, benefits from these improvements can approach nearly $250 million annually per firm

About three-quarters of these benefits arise from not re-creating the intellectual capital already invested in prior document creation

Another 25% of the benefits are due to reduced regulatory non-compliance or paperwork, or better competitiveness in obtaining solicited contracts and grants

$33 billion is wasted each year in re-finding previously found Web documents

Paperwork and regulatory improvements due to documents can save U.S. enterprises $120 billion each year

Lack of document access due to Web sprawl costs U.S. enterprises $22 billion each year

$8 billion in annual benefits is available due to document improvements for competitive governmental grant and contract solicitations

These figures likely severely underestimate the benefits to enterprises from improved competitiveness, a factor not analyzed in this study

Documents are now at the point where structured data was at 15 years ago at the nascent emergence of the data warehousing market.

Seems like a good opportunity for a start up. If funny b/c at work I'm working on a project to bring all of our information into a search index.

</comment><comment><USER3> The state of document management at large companies really is pretty abysmal, and many haven't made much in the way of a serious effort to digitize stuff. My dad, retired from a large petrochemical company, still occasionally gets calls from current engineers there asking if he happens to have any documentation of projects he worked on years ago, and in a lot of cases his personal files seem more complete than the company's, which have been hopelessly shuffled and/or lost over the course of several mergers and moves.

</comment><comment><USER4> An alternate title for this document: "The economic toll of the Microsoft Office monopoly."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> _The information contained within U.S. enterprise documents represents about a third of gross domestic product, or an amount of about $3.3 trillion annually_

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> _It costs, on average, $350 to create a 'typical' document_

</comment><comment><USER5> are we talking getting documents from paper => digital or are we talking doing something with the data in digital documents?

</comment><comment><USER6> Isn't docs.google.com (now with uploads) is the solution? =))</comment>


Light Pollution Masks the Milky Way for a Third of the World's Population - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/science/milky-way-light-pollution-dark-skies.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I think the first time I've witnessed the Milky Way was only 3 years ago at 27. Ever since than I'd often grab my DSLR and drive a couple of hours in the middle of the night outside the city limits to shoot the stars. Quite frankly, unless you live close to a large city like NYC, you're likely 30 minutes to 1 hour away from a decent location to observe the Milky Way.

You're probably not going to see it in its full glory as you would at the Grand Canyon, but it would still be a memorable sight. If you're interested in chasing the Milky Way, check the light pollution map [1] to find some dark spots around your area and then head over to Clear Dark Sky [2] to check weather and visibility conditions. Also, if you're Android or iPhone user, check out Star Walk 2 [3] to help locate the Milky Way (and a ton of other neat stuff!) when you're on site.

[1] [http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html](http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html)

[2] [http://www.cleardarksky.com/csk/](http://www.cleardarksky.com/csk/)

[3] [http://vitotechnology.com/star-walk-2-guide-sky-night- day.ht...](http://vitotechnology.com/star-walk-2-guide-sky-night-day.html)

<comment><USER3> Not in the UK. More like 6 hours to get somewhere in Scotland or Wales thats not populated at relatively high density. Even then ive never seen the milkyway apart from on a greek island in the middle of nowhere. The UK is as denseley populated as the densest New York state in the USA. Europe is very different to the USA on what the impact of a hundred years of industrialisation has meant.

<comment><USER4> That's not really true. There are a fairly large number of "Dark Sky Discovery Sites" where there are laws controlling the amount of light pollution, and where you can see the Milky Way really well. You're probably not more than an hour or two from one, and a few hours from a "Milky Way Class" site. I'm fortunate enough to live quite near the Kielder Park International Dark Sky Zone.

There's a map here: [http://www.darkskydiscovery.org.uk/dark-sky-discovery- sites/...](http://www.darkskydiscovery.org.uk/dark-sky-discovery- sites/map.html)

<comment><USER5> They've got a 'milky way class' site about 5 miles from Croydon, good luck with that!

I applaud the people who set up this site and map, but they should be a bit more honest that going to a special event in a park isn't going to eliminate the continuous orange glow which exists anywhere within 50 miles of London, let alone allow you see the sort of sky that's visible in really remote locations.

I'm sure Kielder would be a great place to go, though. I'd love to go to Kielder Observatory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a shame the International Dark Sky Association hasn't gotten more traction. They advocate the use of lighting and fixtures that reduce light pollution without sacrificing illumination for safety, etc. (Spoiler: just make sure the light shines down and not upwards). [http://darksky.org/](http://darksky.org/)

<comment><USER7> Let's not leave out the option of simply _not_ using fixed, always-on lighting in many locations. The evidence for safety benefits from it is generally mixed:

* There's definitely a benefit to lighting pedestrian crosswalks, though that benefit might be _increased_ if the lighting is triggered by a pedestrian pressing a button before crossing.

* There is a benefit where vehicles are prone to hit fixed objects or drive off the side of a curve, but reflectors or low-output marker lights can provide that benefit in many cases.

* There does not appear to be a reduction in crime from installing fixed lighting in public places. Criminals require light to select victims and break in to vehicles or structures. Some studies have shown reductions in crimes; others have shown increases. Most show no significant effect.

In addition, the capabilities of portable lighting have increased dramatically since most of our cultural assumptions about street lighting came to be. A pocket-sized bicycle light powered by a modern LED and an 18650 Li-ion battery can provide a generous amount of light for urban riding all night long and then some and recharge from a MicroUSB cable in a few hours.

<comment><USER8> An often overlooked reason the lights being always on in convenient stores, groceries, ect: to increase the likelyhood that the perpetrator is spotted and can be later identified. Also helps the video cameras catch them.

<comment><USER9> It seems like having PIR sensors turn on the lights would still take care of that, and likely scare away anyone who'd sneaked into a dark building...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From this map I wonder:

[http://www.youcanseethemilkyway.com/light- pollution/](http://www.youcanseethemilkyway.com/light-pollution/)

WTF are these huge masses of light off the coasts of Argentina and Peru?

<comment><USER11> I saw this comment was downvoted and I figured you were trolling or something, but then I looked and there's a legit mystery there.

There are two big masses of lights, one off the coast of Peru and one off the coast of Argentina, that aren't connected to any landmasses whatsoever. Look 250 km W of Barranca (which is north of Lima on the Peruvian coast), and for the rest, start with the Falklands and look for a cluster 100 km north, one 150-200 km northwest, and one 100 km west.

The cluster off of Peru might be displaced from the Ecuadorian islands to the north -- the shape looks vaguely similar to the islands Isabela, Fernandina, Santiago, Santa Cruz, and San Cristobal (at around 0 deg N, 90 deg W).

I suspect the cluster near the Falklands has been displaced about 300 km to the southeast -- the "ring" just north of the Falklands matches the area around Comodoro Rividavia, the western cluster matches Isla Wellington, and the northern inverted-Y shape seems to roughly follow highways 26/40 in the western part of south Argentina.

EDIT: I moved around a bit more and noticed there are lots of faint streaks off of the coasts of South America, including a fairly big blob just east of Rio. I don't know whether it's browser-specific or something screwy on the backend.

EDIT 2: while most of my local area (Denver) looked sane, I noticed a bright cluster near Hereford, CO (around 41 N, 104 W) and that's just pure farmland. The map shows [0] in the middle of a fairly heavily light-polluted area.

[0] [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Avondale,+email@example.com...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Avondale,+email@example.com,-104.3348417,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sczXN396g486UklKht- BYug!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!4m5!3m4!1s0x8713b236412d87cd:0xe0502d2948a6efc2!8m2!3d38.2375025!4d-104.3510792!6m1!1e1)

<comment><USER12> fishing vessels: [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Malvinas/](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Malvinas/)

<comment><USER11> Interesting. I'd definitely believe that for some of those clusters (particularly the inverted Y). Not sure it fits with the cluster near Peru, and definitely not the one in northeastern Colorado.

<comment><USER13> The one in NE Colorado is likely oil extraction from the Niobrara shale formation.

The street view is from 2007. If you switch to aerial view (from 2016) you'll see many identical looking installations which are likely oil wells installed during the previous 10 years.

[http://archives.datapages.com/data/mountain-geologist- rmag/d...](http://archives.datapages.com/data/mountain-geologist- rmag/data/052/052003/5_rmag-mg520005.htm) says that since 2009 some 4400 wells have gone into Weld County, CO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In 1994, a post-earthquake power grid blackout in LA caused all the light sources in an area to stop functioning. Allegedly, an observatory received calls about strange shapes and lights in the sky; what people were seeing was the Milky Way for the first time. [1]

[1]: [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/04/local/la-me-light- po...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/04/local/la-me-light- pollution-20110104/2)

(there's some doubt as to the legitimacy of the story, but it's still a funny tale)

</comment><comment><USER15> Growing up, I spent all of my time in areas with lots of light pollution. When I was younger and read about how people would use the stars to navigate, I was incredulous -- it didn't occur to 6-year-old me that in times past you could see more than just a dozen stars.

<comment><USER16> I'm still incredulous if I'm being honest. Even though I know this.

<comment><USER5> It's not difficult to get compass directions from the stars, that's not a bad start.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a kid in coastal Northern Florida, I could see the Milky Way by night, and the moon rockets by day. The two sights left a very positive mark.

My wife and I camped near the Grand Canyon the night before a raft trip there. I'd forgotten how beautiful the Milky Way was, was amazed she'd never seen it, and delighted at her delight to see it.

</comment><comment> King-Aaron I find it very strange living in a city, where every night you can go outside and practically read a book with the amount of reflected light. Having grown up in remote Western Australia, I got to see the whole 'fish-bowl' effect of the night sky, basically every night.

I still try to get around an hour or two outside of the city every weekend just to stargaze.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article is quite shallow, but the one linked below is excellent and discusses in some detail several of the serious side-effects of light pollution (on human health, animal populations, crime, as well as wasted money):

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/20/the-dark- side-2](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/20/the-dark-side-2)

</comment><comment><USER19> If you're interested in seeing it, there's a nice website that has tips on how and a light pollution map:

[http://www.youcanseethemilkyway.com](http://www.youcanseethemilkyway.com)

</comment><comment><USER20> Not mentioned: shooting stars! When I lived in Taos, NM I saw hundreds a year. Since moving to the bay 5 years ago, I've seen 1 or maybe 2.

<comment><USER21> Also ISS, We caught it last night and it was incredibly bright since it was just after sunset.

<comment><USER22> A good ISS pass should be visible virtually anywhere-- at its brightest (when it's passing almost directly overhead), it'll be either the second or third brightest object visible in the sky (behind the moon and occasionally Venus).

<comment><USER23> Yes, you can see it even in LA. It's pretty noticeable since it moves quite fast (takes around 3-5 minutes from horizon to horizon)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's crazy to me that you're not allowed to just dump your garbage in a public park, and yet you're allowed to run lights on your property all night if you want.

Beyond just the aesthetics, from a public health perspective it's ridiculous that we lock people up for smoking weed, but allow pretty much unlimited light pollution even though it's likely worse in terms of health.

<comment><USER25> Aside from the fact that dumping garbage in a public park and leaving your lights on are not even remotely close in terms of impact, it's important to point out that one actually serves a utility.

Having lived in cities where electricity is extremely expensive and lights are scarce, I can vouch for the value of light (particularly in poorer, urban areas) during night time. Perhaps you cannot appreciate lit roadways and sidewalks until you've experienced their absence.

<comment><USER26> It depends on the location. In large cities and urban areas sure it makes sense, but outside there is really little need for street lighting.

I'm from a village (~350 people) that to this day still doesn't have street lights and it's great - if you go out at night you just carry a torch. Any nights when it's clear you get a great view of the Milky Way (although there are some large towns ~15 miles away so it could be better).

The roads in the area are all unlit too, so anytime I drive on a main road or motorway with street lights (outside populated areas) it makes me cringe.

<comment><USER27> Most people don't care enough about seeing the stars. They would rather feel safe in their neighborhoods if they need to go out at night, and street lights do a good job of providing that feeling.

<comment><USER7> _street lights do a good job of providing that feeling_

But there isn't significant evidence that they provide that _reality_. Changing the perception is very much an uphill battle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> One reason to love living in the country. Sometimes there is just nothing better than a beanbag, blanket, and a clear night sky.

</comment><comment><USER29> The data used in the interactive map is old. Near the Falklands Islands you should see, along the 200-nautical-mile border of the Argentinean sea, a huge ammount of light: squid fishing ships, most of the are said to be chinese.

For example, like this: [http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it/download/mondo_ridotto0p2...](http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it/download/mondo_ridotto0p25.gif)

From the italian site, [http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it/worldatlas/pages/fig1.htm](http://www.inquinamentoluminoso.it/worldatlas/pages/fig1.htm)

</comment><comment><USER30> > The Scene Viewer can't be opened in your browser. Web Scene Viewer is not > supported on mobile devices.

Anybody have a nice high-resolution screenshot of this? That's the content I was most interested in!

<comment><USER15> There is one from 2006 by David Lorenz at UWisc

[https://djlorenz.github.io/astronomy/lp2006/](https://djlorenz.github.io/astronomy/lp2006/)

Both static images and a Google Maps layer is provided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I believe I may have commented on this before, but it's my opinion that artificial (especially electric) lighting is a cause of huge health and psychological problems. Not long ago the power was out in my neighborhood for about five hours at the end of the day. When the sun went down, it actually got dark. People came out on their porches to catch the last rays of sunlight, creating a sense of community as neighbors saw each other for the first time. With the neighborhood getting dark at the end of the day, I actually started to feel sleepy. It felt _good_ for the day to feel like it was ending.

Something really is lost with pervasive, always-on electric lighting.

I haven't read it yet, but this book on the topic looks intriguing: [https://www.amazon.com/End-Night-Searching-Darkness- Artifici...](https://www.amazon.com/End-Night-Searching-Darkness- Artificial/dp/0316182915)

For my part I've blacked out my window as much as possible to exclude the light from street lights and neighbors, and I've introduced a smart light in my bedroom which I use to simulate the rise and setting of the sun. It's really helped me get a sense of the days' start and end which I've been missing, though I hadn't realized it until that power outage.

</comment><comment><USER32> Personally I think it makes going out in the wilderness special.

If it was always there we wouldn't appreciate it.

<comment><USER33> I think history records that the night sky has always been appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've lived on the US East Coast my whole life. I like to camp, so I thought I had seen the Milky Way before. Then, I took a canoeing trip in northern Minnesota and camped a night on an island in the middle of a lake. It was a crystal clear night and there was zero light pollution. Gorgeous! Here I was a decently well educated adult and I had no idea the sky could look like that.

</comment><comment><USER35> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11880876](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11880876)

I'll make the same comment here: I was just in Mitzpe Ramon, IL with my family on a moonless weekend night. It is supposed to be the darkest point in Israel. The viewing was fairly good that night. And yet my kids were disappointed upon seeing the Milky Way. They'd expected the night sky to look like what they've seen in photos, like shown in the NYT article, even though I'd forewarned them not to. :-(

</comment><comment><USER36> Anyone in the Bay Area is a two hour drive South to the Esalen Institute which has hot springs on a cliff over the Pacific open to the public from 1am - 3am. I recommend everyone to go there and experience the Milky Way from there. [0]

[0] [http://www.esalen.org/page/esalen-hot- springs](http://www.esalen.org/page/esalen-hot-springs)

</comment><comment><USER37> There is a nice animated video about people waking up the wonders of a natural night sky: [https://vimeo.com/67419875](https://vimeo.com/67419875)

I can still remember the first time I saw the Milky Way. At first, I thought it was just a cloud, but man, it was beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if this hasn't always been true. From the first community fires lit at night, to the days of gaslights and now electric street lights, much of the population has been in cities away from clear skies. Only a lucky few have ever lived alone away from towns.

</comment><comment><USER39> Forests (aka the largest connected land-based photosensor arrays on Earth?) and whole ecosystems likely use the visible night sky as a shared clock/synchronization mechanism.

Can't begin to imagine the potential consequences of it "going bright".

</comment><comment><USER40> After living in remote parts of North America for 10 years, I recently visited my home country of Australia.

In the middle of a town of 30,000 people, near Melbourne, the stars were jaw- droppingly good. So much so I setup my DSLR and took a bunch of photos.

</comment><comment><USER41> My 4 year old son asked for a Remote Control Helicopter for xmas this year. Specifically, a Helicopter with a laser beam so that he could shoot out the street light that shines on our back yard.

Evidently I complain about this a lot.

</comment><comment><USER42> Frankly, I'm OK with trading off massive economic growth and reduction of human misery, including conquering darkness itself, in exchange for having to take a trip out to the country if you want to go stargazing.

<comment><USER43> What if it's not a tradeoff we need to make? What if you can have both a dark sky and a thriving civilization?

<comment><USER42> The fact that 1/3 of the world's population (in a world where 1/2 lives in urban areas) does not live in such circumstances strongly suggests that that is an arrangement is not empirically available, or not empirically valued.

Even more frankly, I'm not sure that availability of stargazing is a universal enough aesthetic preference, compared to extremely widespread desire for nighttime illumination, to give it any significant policy weight at all.

<comment><USER44> > an arrangement is not empirically available, or not empirically valued.

Maybe its value is beyond your reductionistic analysis. For example, light pollution impacts bats which pollinate flowers which only bloom at night (cactus, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> >light pollution

That's the most cynical name you can give to civilisation. Life in the dark is horrendous no matter how many stars you can see.

This is something to be proud.

<comment><USER7> Portable lighting is a thing. Cars have lights on them. I carry a flashlight when I go out at night.

The light I carry is under 1x4" in size and can provide enough light to see well enough to walk comfortably and to be seen by cars (70 lumens) for 15 hours on a single charge of its rechargeable battery. Should I want more light, it can match the output of a car headlight (1000 lumens) for an hour.

Lights with this kind of performance can be had for $15, plus another $10 or so for the battery and charger. It's not a binary choice between life in the dark and illuminating a bunch of mostly-unused space.

<comment><USER46> I agree with you. That said, a cursory google search suggests that NYC serves over 10M people with only 25K street lamps. So I suspect that, in many places, there is something to be said for the efficiency of fixed lighting.</comment></comment></comment>


The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor <comment><USER2> This is quite the intriguing science mystery. I really enjoyed it. And it ended with a possibility of some pragmatic benefits too:

 _Oklo also demonstrates a way to store some forms of nuclear waste that were once thought to be almost impossible to prevent from contaminating the environment. Since the advent of nuclear power generation, huge amounts of radioactive xenon 135, krypton 85 and other inert gases that nuclear plants generate have been released into the atmosphere. Nature's fission reactors suggest the possibility of locking those waste products away in aluminum phosphate minerals, which have a unique ability to capture and retain such gases for billions of years._

Excellent!</comment>


Linus Torvalds fires off angry 'compiler-masturbation' rant - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/01/linus_torvalds_fires_off_angry_compilermasturbation_rant/ <comment><USER3> I really find it a poor show, Linus running his mouth like that, and all the others scurrying to reply deferentially and civilly to his adolescent rant (whether he is technically right or not, which doesn't even seem clear from the follow-up mails). IMHO, it's not the way to build an inclusive community, and it's not the way to encourage newcomers (who may be unfamiliar with your coding practices but could have useful expertise in their own right).

Really, i long for the "coolness" and "macho" around the Linux project to die. It's doing free software everywhere a disservice thanks to the project's high visibility. Maybe this makes me a wuss or whatever (i freely admit to being extremely non-confrontational), but it'd be nice if people of all cultures and communication styles would be welcomed as volunteers to great libre software projects such as these.

EDIT: I wonder if it would help if news sites would be more critical of such outbursts? This article seems to remain relatively neutral, but perhaps public condemnation of emotional outbursts would help towards taking the glamour out of it. I wonder if it'd also help stop "hero-worshipping" emulation of such behaviour.

<comment><USER4> I'll take a brutal honest man like Linus any day before a smooth talking bullshiter. At least he'll stand up by his words with responsibility and without excuses.

Compared to professional liars who brought mass murder, civil wars and refugee crisis in the last decade to the middle east, admitting them later and still walking the Earth without trials, I'd say the news sites can leave their critique from Linus and give some more focus somewhere else.

<comment><USER3> That's a pretty serious straw man you've set up. There isn't a single-axis spectrum of characters ranging from smooth-talking bullshitters to straight- talking foul-mouthed Linuses (sp?).

The fact of the matter is that one can just as easily be a brash and insulting bullshitter, or a friendly and polite straight-talker. I am strongly in favour of the latter: it is more inclusive and comes off as a lot less macho and/or insecure.

<comment><USER5> > The fact of the matter is that one can just as easily be a brash and > insulting bullshitter, or a friendly and polite straight-talker.

Yes it is _possible_ to be so, however, it is not always possible to know if a friendly and polite person is a straight-talked or a bull-shitter - <USER2> advantage of Linus' personality is that there's is absolutely no question which one you're dealing with. I wouldn't recommend this as appropriate behavior when dealing with unknown people on a new project, but for a long- running project like Linux, I can't imagine most people can't unemotionally disregard Linus' language as "just the way he is" \- if he was the type of person who if you were to disagree with him, he would then try to destroy your career to teach you a lesson, now then I think you'd have good reason to condemn him. I personally have no idea how he handles disagreement though. In my experience, I'll _gladly_ take a harsh but righteous person over a polite politically-savvy self-promoting bullshit artist any day of the week....these people are a lot more common than many people think.

<comment><USER6> Except Linus' behaviour influences how other people behave, and their behaviour is off-putting for some devs.

Linux loses good devs because some people emulate Linus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Original ML mail: [http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.3/02866.html](http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.3/02866.html)

Someone rewrote the rant in polite English: [http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html](http://catcode.com/comments/2015/cf20151101.html)

<comment><USER8> Although the polite version is semantically identical the syntax of the message in many cases as important as the message itself.

Much of what makes human communication universally intelligible across cultures and languages like tone of voice or body language is lost in writing and the human tendency is to replace it with similar substitutes as it helps to convey meta-information that would be hard to convey otherwise.

I believe if one would analyze every single email sent by Linux to the list the great majority of them would have similar syntax to the polite English above but, of course, those wouldn't make the news.

The bitter rants seem to be reserved to the cases where it is imperative that everybody, involved or not, understand very clearly why that behaviour is not tolerable and the reason for that. Similar cases like the refusal to merge Kay Sievers further submissions [1] until he cleaned up and owned up to his mistakes or the reprieve of a maintainer [2] that broke userland with a kernel commit seems to follow the same pattern.

The difference to a professional setting is that, in person in a company, one can always call a closed doors meeting and express with tone of voice and body language the same message without the public spectacle.

Even in those cases, specially when everybody knows what it mean to be called to the boss presence, it can be as embarrassing and intimidating as what happens in those forums.

[1] [http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1404.0/01331.html](http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1404.0/01331.html)

[2] [https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75](https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75)

<comment><USER9> At some point, will we stop making excuses for this guy? Because the rest of us manage to communicate without constantly offending.

<comment><USER10> Offense is taken not given. While Linus can be exceedingly colourful at times I for one don't find it offensive. Moreover you, and I, can't fathom the amount of times he probably had in depth discussions on various kernel topics, by now he probably knows that sometimes being abrasive is the only way to get message across.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. Relevant SBMC comic:

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I urge all the people who haven't to actually read the mailing list post (link [0] from lobster_johnson), and note that (from the register article):

""" The rant is entirely impersonal: it rails against code, not people. Those who contributed the offending code will have no doubt of Torvalds' feelings towards it and the open nature of kernel development means it would not be hard to identify those responsible. Torvalds names no names, however. """

Linus is passionate about what he does, and as he has explained several times before, the reach and the medium make him easily misunderstood if he is all polite and politically correct, so he makes sure there is no way he is misunderstood.

Let me ask you this - after this issue, does anyone here think Linus will be willing to accept the usub()/uadd() calls into the kernel any time soon? Had Linus answered politely and politically correct, he would have had to do that about ten times as much, because (a) other people wouldn't notice or think that this response doesn't apply to their special snowflake code, and (b) those who know it applies to would feel that there is room for discussion.

Linus is herding cats without paying them, and has been doing this amazingly well for over 20 years now. Whether or not you subscribe to it, his management style works, produces amazing results. At the scale that linus manages, you (probably) have to be dictator, and (likely) cannot be a polite one.

[0] [http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.3/02866.html](http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.3/02866.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> Eventually Linux will find out that those new overflow functions produce better ASM code by checking the overflag FLAG. This is in HW, use it, and don't fallback to inline assembly. jo +2 is much better than the previous code, even if the C function looks insane, yes. I agree with that. I also replaced all our crazy manual overflow checks with these new builtins, and with mult and signed add/sub it made it much faster and easier to read. The uadd/usub cases are indeed quirky, but at least consistent.

Summary: Linus is way off here.

</comment><comment> bra-ket brilliant</comment>


Wired identifies iPhone 4G finder - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-finder/

<comment><USER2> If these guys had thought a little more about it, it would have gone like this:

1\. Brian asks the techy guys at Gizmodo for their help in identifying and returning a strange phone to its rightful owner

2\. Gizmodo hires Brian as a consultant on the project for $5000, pictures and notes are taken while identifying its owner and origin

3\. Phone is shipped back to engineer/Apple within 24 hours

4\. Gizmodo publishes a blog entry detailing the successful investigation and return of the phone

:)

<comment><USER3> 4) Would probably be considered publishing trade secrets which is a felony.

<comment><USER4> I've heard discussion that it wouldn't be publishing trade secrets since the phone was left (albeit inadvertantly) in a public place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Brian Hogan is in serious trouble, but it's trouble he put himself into. He damn well could have walked into an Apple store, or even Apple HQ (he lives in the area), and dropped the phone off there, rather than looking for some skeezy way to milk essentially stolen goods. So if he really did the things that are written about him, he belongs in jail. Remember that ignorance of the law is no excuse in legal contexts.

<comment><USER6> You seriously, truly believe a person belongs in prison for selling something he found? I don't understand the blood lust some people around here have for this guy or gizmodo. Say what you will about ethics, this is certainly no reason to put a person in prison. What a bizarre perspective you have.

<comment><USER7> How would you feel if I found keys to a your home and sold them to a local gossip blog to come take pictures? Maybe not the best example, but it conveys the idea...

<comment><USER6> Personally, I don't think you should go to prison.

If, say, this guy had conspired to break into Apple and steal this thing or stalked the engineer and thieved it outright, then there is a difference. I don't know and don't care if there isn't one by law, it's just not the same.

I think this guy made a bone head decision. I think Gawker did too. I also think mistakes happen and that punishment should fit the crime. What do we know about this crime and the damage it did? It's hard to gauge, but I don't think it's so criminal that people belong in prison for it. This wasn't the nuclear launch codes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That set of facts doesn't look good for Brian J. Hogan.

Once he suspected what it was he made no effort to return the device, but made a good deal of effort to sell it to a tech blog. Err... excuse me, his lawyer wants people to say _share it with a tech blog_.

<comment><USER9> Thought experiment: if I lost my phone in a bar, would you think to return it to HTC?

<comment><USER10> Your phone doesn't belong to HTC, it belongs to you. The prototype iPhone belongs to Apple.

<comment><USER9> How would a "reasonable person" know the difference?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the beginning, I thought Brian's and Gizmodo's best defense would be to say "We collaborated to try to find the owner through a large platform." How well that will work with "$5k for exclusive access" is questionable.

</comment><comment><USER12> _...he believed the payment was for allowing the site exclusive access to review the phone._

The attorney keeps stressing this like it's the cornerstone of their defense. Are they trying to say that he was paid for access to review, not in exchange for the (stolen) iPhone itself?

<comment><USER9> A sticky point is the value of the phone. If he sold it for $5000, then he stole $5000. If he didn't sell it, but was paid $5000 by Gizmodo to not tell anyone else about it, then the value of the phone is in question. If the value of the phone is less than $400 (and if you add up the cost of each component, and take into account that it was remotely bricked, that is easy to argue), then there is no particularly severe crime involved. A slap on the wrist, at worst. If it's $5000, though, then jail time could become involved.

This defense is also good for Gizmodo. It's not illegal to pay someone $5000 to not talk about something to the media. It's the basis for pretty much every employment contract in existence.

Like most high-profile cases, this is not particularly clear-cut. He didn't walk into Apple headquarters, gun down a few guards under the watchful eye of a security camera, take the iPhone, and sell it to the highest bidder. That would be clear-cut "grand theft" (not to mention, murder). Instead, he found it lying around in a bar, asked everyone in the bar if it was theirs, was told no, the excitement and curiosity went to his head, and he ended up with $5000 for letting Gizmodo take some pictures of the thing. A crime? Maybe. But not obviously.

(There is a lot of hate for this guy, but think about it. If you found a cool electronic gadget laying around in a bar, wouldn't you play with it? And when you found out it was a fucking top-secret prototype of one of the most secretive companies in existence, wouldn't you be a little excited? And when you're excited, do you always make the best decisions? If not, you don't belong on HN.

Sure, the guy is a sleaze-bag for pocketing the five grand. But Apple is a sleaze-bag for paying slave children build the phones in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but it is helpful to treat both parties with the same scrutiny; at least when we are using words like "sleaze-bag".)

<comment><USER13> How can someone even "pay" slave children to build anything? By definition, "slaves" aren't getting paid at all.

Mandatory Futurama Quotes:

 _Fry: You know what the worst thing about being a slave is? They make you work all day but they don't pay you or let you go.

Leela: That's the only thing about being a slave._

<comment><USER9> So nobody has any actual commentary on my thoughts -- just outrage at one exaggeration made in passing.

Oh HN, why...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shame the $5000 he made will now be eaten up in attorney fees

<comment><USER7> Shame he took $5000 for the phone in the first place...</comment></comment>


The big hangover of my generation - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/the-big-hangover-of-my-generation-fd19fb2f56c6 <comment><AUTHOR> Recently I turned 31 :-). I also became increasingly frustrated about many things in tech, economy, society, etc. So did a lot of my friends. At first, I thought that is typical "30s Blues". But with a bit of research, it turned to be more than just that. It has to do our parents (always :-D ), the Berlin Wall, Niel Armstrong, economic productivity, that modem dial-up sound, Starbucks, and above all "Fight Club". It also turns out to be very good news.</comment>


How to develop an writing style: tips and lifehacks - <AUTHOR> https://readandwrite.today/essay/how-to-develop-an-writing-style.html <comment><USER2> > How to develop an writing style: tips and lifehacks

 _a_ writing style</comment>


RFC 188, by Damian Conway: Objects: Private keys and methods - <AUTHOR> https://raku-advent.blog/2020/08/16/rfc-188-by-damian-conway-objects-private-keys-and-methods/ <comment><USER2> This appears to be a Perl RFC. Here's a link to the original post and discussion:

[https://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language- email@example.com...](https://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language- firstname.lastname@example.com/msg00216.html)

<comment><USER3> Fyi:

The posted article is one of 20 articles forming a 20 year retrospective on what happened as a result of the 361 "completed" RFCs that were a primary driver of what became Raku.

The articles typically include links and quotes to the originals, and discussion of how the suggestions of the RFCs transformed into aspects of Raku. It looks like this one missed out the links, so thanks for adding one!</comment></comment>


Where did your middle-class customers go? - <AUTHOR> http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=enterprise-city&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&uid=16ea2629-7e90-46f0-a706-dd6152764513&plckPostId=Blog%3a16ea2629-7e90-46f0-a706-dd6152764513Post%3a6951e0af-23f8-4938-8d13-5c0fef4e6eaa&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest#axzz1EztjhDdZ <comment><USER2> You can be pretty much sure that any article that discusses the 'middle-class' is politcally motivated. It's ill-defined and redefined for any purpose. The term 'middle-class' is practically meaningless, except as a mechanism to cause the reader to identify with the the group supposedly being victimized. It's purely an appeal to ethos and pathos.

That top 5%? Thats us. Never forget it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) A couple who lives together making 75K each are in the top 5% of household income in the US. That's not even an incredibly high programmer salary. So as to where did your middle class customers go? Hacker News.

As to why the top 5% have so much wealth, well it's by starting early.

A year after I got out of high school I had a techsupport job for 36K / year I was making on par with my parents who had 25-30 years experience each, 3 years later and I was no longer a renter. Starting early and building a nice egg early on allows you to take advantage of compounding interest. I had a house at the time that most people were getting out of school with a pile of debt.

People in North America have a tonne of disposable income, look at McDonalads, Starbucks, etc. They do very good business trading on disposable income (consumer surplus). You don't need either of those companies, you can make a coffee/burger yourself and save a pile. In fact you can make yourself a fairly decent retirement for a latte a day.

<comment><USER3> > In fact you can make yourself a fairly decent retirement for a latte a day.

not really. $3 * (40*365) = $43,800. in order to save $1M over 40 years, you need to save $2083 a month. and $1M is not a glorious retirement.

<comment><USER4> You're forgetting the magic of compound interest. At 5% annually, $3/day comes to more like $137k. For $1M you need to save $655/month at 5%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article makes a major flaw. It equates income with consumption, assuming that if people are not earning money, they are not spending it. This assumption is utterly false.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt

Households earning $39,999 or less tend to have consumption exceeding income. For example, households with income in [$5000,$9999] tend to consume about $18k.

Presumably the difference between earned income and expenses is made up for with credit and welfare.

<comment><USER6> _Presumably the difference between earned income and expenses is made up for with credit and welfare._

umm, why would credit and welfare not be counted as income?

Credit is (presumably) just a future income. And welfare is very real current income.

<comment><USER5> When the BLS and other government agencies talk about "income", they generally mean " _earned_ income". Welfare is not earned income, neither is credit.

<comment><USER6> ok, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't agree with the article's cut off point that $50k household pre-tax income is middle class. 2 parents, 2 kids making $50k is $36k after tax. Mortgage on a small house is $1800/month. Cars are expensive too, add $400 a month for payments on that. Food prices have doubled the last couple years.

Average family can't afford health care ($12k/yr cost for 60% coverage plan for 2 parents 2 kids according to Congressional Budget Office), housing and food on that income.

<comment><USER5> _Food prices have doubled the last couple years._

No, they are up 6.7% since Jan 1 2008.

<http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIUFDSL>

<comment><USER8> Food prices have risen twice as much as inflation. So, no, they haven't doubled, but their rate of increase has outpaced the rest of the economy. And with wages stagnating in relationship to inflation, this is a cause for concern.

<comment><USER9> It depends on how you eat. In my efforts to lose weight and get more healthy in general, I shop mostly along the outer edges of the store (produce/meats).

In these areas, prices have shot up way beyond 6.7%. Onions and potatoes are easily up 100% or more since 2006/7. "Cheap" cuts of meat like chicken, roasts, pork chops, skirt/flank steaks and beef briskets are easily up 15-20%. Milk is up. Butter up 150% of more since 2006/7. Beer is up 10%.

If you eat processed stuff, those manufacturers can blunt price increases by using lots of subsidized commodities like corn and soy products.

<comment><USER8> _If you eat processed stuff, those manufacturers can blunt price increases by using lots of subsidized commodities like corn and soy products._

I think this is an important factor to consider. In many ways, this stratification simply offsets the costs into health issues later in life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Safe to say that anyone carrying an iPad while talking on an iPhone sipping a Starbucks is middle class.

In many, ways middle class is better defined as access to disposable income (at least from a marketing/retail perspective). What defines disposable income varies at all income levels, regions, social situation, etc.</comment>


Show HN: LifeLitUp - <AUTHOR>

www.LifeLitUp.com
We're going to be opening up to an alpha soon, and if you'd like to check it out when we go live, put yourself down on our list.
I'll try to answer as many question you guys have, without really trying to give much away.
Thanks!
P.S. If you have any advice for me, hit me with it! <comment><USER2> Clickable: <http://www.LifeLitUp.com>

</comment><comment><USER2> It would help if you would at least pitch your service...

<comment><AUTHOR> kindly wait, we're waiting for tech support to install our lightbulbs for lifelitup.com</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any Bay Area companies looking for HS interns in Summer 2018? - <AUTHOR> Hi. I'm a high school student that's looking for a summer internship to hone my CS skills. I am a quick learner and have been developing software on my own for about 4 years now.
While looking online, I could only find large companies looking for graduate-level interns. However, since this is Silicon Valley, I feel that there are a significant number of smaller companies that would be willing to mentor a high school student.
If you're interested, leave your email and the kind of person you're looking for down below or send me an email (it's in my profile).
Resume, detailed description of abilities, or recommendations available upon request. <comment><USER2> If you are turning 18, why not try to get paid for your open-source work: [https://developers.google.com/open- source/gsoc/](https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/)

Most small companies have enough to worry about paying full-timers, let alone take on interns. If you are very ambitious, you can try becoming a contract developer (other people here are better-equipped to talk about that in detail).

<comment><AUTHOR> How would an underage contract developer get contracts in the first place? Most SV companies are very exclusive about who they hire.</comment></comment>


How do I get more followers on my FB page for a short I want to crowd fund? - <AUTHOR> I'm planning to launch a crowdfunding campaign in order to get necessary funds for my film. I was counting on getting the word out through social media and particularly Facebook. I was wondering if any one else on here has had to do this and how were you able to succeed? <comment><AUTHOR> The link to our facebook page is: [https://www.facebook.com/layersshortfilm/](https://www.facebook.com/layersshortfilm/)</comment>


Ask HN: Which jobs suit a new grad good at systems thinking and problem solving? - <AUTHOR> Give me the verdict for 2020 and ahead please. Of course, I'm asking about jobs that pay quite well. I don't want to get into very-low-level languages or work that has excessive formalizing.
I'd love to hear about non-technical or less-technical roles that demand these skills as well.
I would be very, very grateful for your inputs. <comment><USER2> For a new grad, my opinion is run-of-the-mill software engineer at any tech company, or tech-initiated company.

I may be wrong, but from my experience a new grad won't be able to do much systems thinking on their own right out of the gate. The one exception of course being if you join a startup as one of the first couple of engineers - but then again, a startup hiring a new grad as one of their very first engineers is probably a red flag in itself.

My thoughts on the matter is that pretty much every software engineer wants to move into more systems-level thinking, whether that be as product manager or a systems architect. But, just like most other high-paying industries, you do have to put in the time a bit as a software engineer and make the mistakes necessary in order to fully understand not just what makes a good system, but why those decisions make a good system

Just like every investment banking new grad wants to be the one making deals, it's not going to happen (or, not going to happen effectively) until you've gotten some years "in the trenches" built up. As a new grad, this was frustrating for me to hear - and it's still frustrating as I'm only a few years out of college, and still not doing much systems level decision making. But, now I frankly understand why I'm not making those decisions yet. This is one of those times where no matter how much you study or practice, only real- life experience will prepare you to do that type of job properly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find weasling my way into traditional companies looking for work as a sys- admin is pretty stable work if you don't mind managing legacy corporate software. Otherwise lots of my friends started at help desks and jumped over to what they found more interesting.</comment>