Ask HN: Where is Half-Life 2: Episode 3? - <AUTHOR> Any little birdies at Valve know anything? Just remembered that it was supposed to come out years ago and keeps getting pushed. I know one of the drawbacks of a teal organization is that things are, "done when it's done", but does anyone have an idea? Is it still in production or has Valve moved their focus to VR and Steam? <comment><USER2> A year ago the lead writer for the series released the story on his website:

[http://www.marclaidlaw.com/epistle-3/](http://www.marclaidlaw.com/epistle-3/)</comment>


Facebook launches employee ferry service from SF - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/02/12/facebook-launches-employee-ferry-service-from-sf/

<comment><USER3> This won't be a popular thing to say, but both Facebook and Google (and many others) are now at the scale where they can really effectively impact policy. They already do this at the national level (Eg immigration/SOPA) - <USER2> focusing on changing _housing_ policy at the local level (to encourage more density & units) would go a long way to alleviate these issues.

This isn't for charity - the housing shortage isn't particularly pleasant for their employees either, as it makes everything scarcer/more expensive (parking, grocery, other cost of living).

Edit: A couple of references on housing: [http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San- Fran...](http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San-Francisco- creates-its-own-housing-crisis-5139869.php#src=fb)

<comment><USER4> They can certainly try to impact policy, but are they able to? Immigration reform is stymied, net neutrality is lost. In California, major issues include Prop 13 limiting property tax increases, resistance to development in SF, and arguably rent control in SF. See no evidence that FB or Goog would be able to make any difference to these - big blocks of voters like things how they are.

<comment><USER5> Tech companies do have power on the Peninsula itself. The best thing they could do is try to fix the building height restrictions along the Caltrain corridor, and licensing rules for food/bar/entertainment, to make the Peninsula a more attractive place for 30something (if not 20something) employees.

Mountain View and Cupertino, at least, seem to behave relatively sanely. Santa Clara almost goes _too far_ as an industry town.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure anything could piss off SF tech company protesters more than Facebook/Google attempting to fix building height restrictions.

At the core of it, these people have a xenophobic fear of change. They might be making noise about rent prices now, but if these companies tried to address this concern, the concerns would shift.

<comment><USER5> I think one of their explicit goals is "techies get out" \-- if everyone moved to San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and SF tax base dropped, it'd be self- correcting.

The problem is the Peninsula actually _is_ boring, at least for single people who don't drive. I'd rather see SFBA tech contribute $10-20b on making the Peninsula an awesome place to live, rather than trying to fix SF's infrastructure and politics. Plus, there's money to be made doing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Odd, I don't live in Northern California but I was just wondering last week why these companies (sad the public sector doesn't handle it) don't use ferries instead of buses. Ferries are effectively used in other large cities, NYC, Sydney, Seattle, to name a few.

<comment><USER5> There are actually lots of ferries in SFBA, just not on silly routes like SF to RWC. They're funded using the justification of "water emergency transportation" (i.e. post earthquake or something else which takes out a bridge), but basically are just to keep wealthy and prominent voters in a few places happy. Essentially they're heavily subsidized (true operating costs are around $50-150/ride; price is about $8; ridership levels are very low on many routes).

[http://sanfranciscobayferry.com/](http://sanfranciscobayferry.com/)

In Seattle it makes sense because it's between islands, some of which have no bridge access. In the Bay Area, there are bridges directly on many routes, and aside from a couple of tourist places, everywhere the ferries run is at worst two bridges or two segments of ground travel away. (In Seattle, the transit authority is actually fairly competent too, by comparison)

<comment><USER8> Your numbers struck me as surprisingly high. It seems hard to believe that running a ferry across the bay with 100 passengers can cost $10,000. But there are definitely articles backing you up:

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/South- San-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/South-San- Francisco-ferry-loaded-with-subsidies-3659513.php)

While basically matching your numbers for the new routes, the article also mentions that the effective subsidy for the older routes is about $15 per ride. I guess part of the question is how to distinguish "start up costs" from "operating costs".

<comment><USER9> Nice article, it says basically that a 140 seat Ferry is $8M. The compares to about $300K for 60 seat bus, or at most $900K for equivalent seats. I could not track down a solid dataset for operating cost per mile for a large vessel. I know that in general it is quite high because it takes much more energy to push through the water than it does to roll on freeways (and even less to roll on rails). Further there are weather systems that would keep a boat at the dock but a bus or train could drive through. Of all the transportation modes trains are the most economical to operate on a marginal cost basis but have the high startup and operating costs from the essentially dedicated infratstructure.

It would be interesting to see if they could build a floating train somehow (trust me, this is the kind of project that gets you promoted at Google :-) basically float a monorail track between up and down the bay such that you got the energy/operating costs benefits of rail setup without the huge land/tax/easement costs of a land locked rail line.

<comment><USER5> If you're willing to shut the train down during 100 year storms, I wonder if you could just build a regular monorail along the bayfront. It's not very deep; there's a bunch of marsh/slough crap on the coast. Other than a few areas, the bay view is pretty ugly already. An electric elevated monorail should have minimal environmental impact (just pylons; not sure how much during construction).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How about opening an office in San Francisco instead? I know Google already has one but probably other companies from peninsula/south bay need to start expanding their presence in SF as well.

<comment><USER11> I don't understand, wouldn't this be a good investment opportunity with San Francisco growing? Facebook could build its own tower and lease out space for condos, apartments, offices, ground floor commercial, etc.

I'm really kinda bummed they're building a huge sprawling building. I think Amazon is being the best citizen in this regard.

<comment><USER12> To a close approximation, San Francisco won't let anyone build anything.

<comment><USER13> Been here lately? There are over five million square feet of commercial space actively underconstruction, 20000 housing units actively under construction, and 50000 housing units permitted and in some stage of development planning.

<comment><USER5> There's still the problem that most of the construction within SF is in areas where "people don't want to live", at least not "trendy" startup people. Generally 20something tech people want to live in the Mission and work in SOMA. Transit _within_ SF is kind of defective, even for that pattern.

HP/Bayview would be the natural place to fix, and the third street rail/mission bay/etc. was supposed to open that up, but Bayview still appears to be the ghetto. Fixing Bayview will bring even more cries of racism/gentrification/etc. than other parts of the city, due to demographics; plus much of the available space in HP is either nuclear waste dump or dirty industrial, so it's expensive to remediate.

<comment><USER14> I don't know what the relative numbers are by neighborhood, but I've lived here for a decade and there does seem to be a gigantic surge of construction over the last few years in "places people want to live (and work)". Not much in the mission, but all up and down market near duboce triangle, folsom, harrison... these are great locations, and I'm super excited to see the change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looking something from Facebook. Good

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder what kind of impact this will have on waterfront real estate.

<comment><USER17> Man, oceanfront property might get _expensive_

<comment><USER18> Oceanfront property in and immediately around San Francisco is not the expensive property: it's far away from downtown and way too foggy! Also, as long as we're talking ferries, you don't send your ferry all the way around the peninsula, through the Golden Gate, and out the other side to a non- existent dock to pick people up from some of the lower population-density / lowest computer-programmer density zones of San Francisco. If anything, you send the people a bus that point, and even with traffic it's a better plan.

Now. Bayfront property, on the other hand, is different.</comment></comment></comment>


You shouldn't write your content in Uppercase, instead use CSS - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/why-you-shouldnt-write-your-content-in-uppercase-instead-use-css-b03ac2c65b99 <comment><USER2> esentially: use text-transform: uppercase; for accessibility reasons.</comment>


Why Rapleaf Does Not Use Unique Identifiers in Cookies - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rapleaf.com/dev/2010/09/10/why-rapleaf-does-not-use-unique-identifiers-in-cookies/

<comment><AUTHOR> The technical details were linked to a couple months ago but that post got no traction - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1542586></comment>


Why Doesn't Ancient Fiction Talk About Feelings? (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/why-doesnt-ancient-fiction-talk-about-feelings <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18261599](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18261599)

61 days ago. 54 comments, including the same misunderstanding of the thesis due to responding to the misleading title.

<comment><USER3> Can you try to summarize how you see the thesis, then? It may actually be helpful to others if you do; if you believe that the article states a different thesis than the title, then it may be too subtle a difference for some readers to find; specifically, I personally am one such case — I'd be very interested in learning if there's something I missed!

<comment><USER4> I'm not the one you are replying to, but my 50 cent: It seems many replies think the article is claiming that ancient literature does contain emotions.

This is not what the article is saying. It is saying that _medieval authors represented characters' mental states mainly through their direct speech and gestures, which were used to convey intense emotions in a stereotypical way—lots of hand-wringing and tearing of hair, but few subtle gestures such as raised eyebrows or faint smiles flickering over lips._

So examples from poetry, classical drama, Ecclesiastes etc. does not disprove this. Those are all examples of direct speech. And the gestures of Achilles are not exactly subtle. (And in any case Greek antiquity is not medieval.)

The article is concerned about how mental states are described in fiction. The sagas does not say "Eric felt conflicting emotions about this but kept silent". They describe what he said and did, and you have to figure out the mental state yourself unless he outright says (or sings) what he is feeling. In contrast modern literature may have an all-knowing narrator which tells you the emotions and thoughts of the characters, or you may have internal monologue or stream-of-consciousnesses which give you a direct view into the mind of the characters.

A question then is why pre-modern literature use direct speech to convey emotion while modern use mentalizing? A possible explanation is that pre- modern literature was read or acted out in public, while modern literature is read silently in private.

The article further propose that reading literary fiction may in itself improve your mentalizing skills, i.e. your ability to imagine what other people are thinking and feeling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The hypothesis that this is somehow related to a shift to modernity was utterly undermined for me as soon as I learned about poems like the Li Sao[1], written 2000 years before the author claims that literature developed to allow people to decipher complex societies. The character clearly feels—it's not the case that what we interpret as their feelings are actually just actions taken by gods:

       Nine fields of orchids at one time I grew,
       For melilot a hundred acres too,
       And fifty acres for the azalea bright,
       The rumex fragrant and the lichen white.
       I longed to see them yielding blossoms rare,
       And thought in season due the spoil to share.
       I did not grieve to see them die away,
       But grieved because midst weeds they did decay.

No doubt a cursory search of ancient literature from other cultures will find similar examples. In the end this enduring myth seems to be flawed in the same way as the hypothesis that somehow a cabal of medieval rulers invented a couple centuries of time out of nowhere.[2]

[1] [http://www.lingshidao.cn/hanshi/quyuan.htm](http://www.lingshidao.cn/hanshi/quyuan.htm) [2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis)

</comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps it's saga writers who don't talk about feelings. Take a look at the Oedipus plays, Antigone, Oedipus Tyrannus, Oedipus at Colonus. I can't say anything about the ancient Greek but public performance of the modern dress English version of Antigone (based on Jean Anouilh's French version) that we put on in high school was as emotionally charged as you can get. If Sophocles were around now he'd be serious box office material.

<comment><USER7> I thought of Antigone's execution dirge as the post's counterexample.

Or another example - Jesus praying in Gethsemane. Maybe fiction, maybe not, but certainly an example of internal exposition.

<comment><USER3> Also: the book of Ecclesiastes [1][2], or the Song of Songs [3] — poetry at its finest... how is it not about thoughts and feelings?

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

[2]: [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes_(Bible)](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes_\(Bible\))

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Depends on where you draw the line for ancient. In the Iliad, Achilles spends a fair bit of time discussing his feelings--mostly, to be sure, of suffering disrespect or of mourning his friend. The main actors of the Aeneid don't have especially stuff upper lips, do they?

<comment><USER9> The oft-discussed here "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes -- intriguing and possibly wrong, but still a fascinating read -- argues otherwise. This is what Jaynes has to say about Achilles [1]:

"The word _psyche_ , which later means soul or conscious mind, is in most instances life-substances, such as blood or breath: a dying warrior bleeds out his _psyche_ onto the ground or breathes it out in his last gasp. The _thumos_ , which later comes to mean something like emotional soul, is simply motion or agitation. When a man stops moving, the _thumos_ leaves his limbs. But it is also somehow like an organ itself, for when Glaucus prays to Apollo to alleviate his pain and to give him strength to help his friend Sarpedon, Apollo hears his prayer and "casts strength in his _thumos_ " (Iliad, 16:529). The _thumos_ can tell a man to eat, drink, or fight. Diomedes says in one place that Achilles will fight "when the _thumos_ in his chest tells him to and a god rouses him""

(Note that, simplifying a bit, Jaynes argued that the men in the Illiad were consciousless robots which "heard the voices" of the Gods telling them to do things, instead of having an inner monologue)

and

"The Iliad is about action and it is full of action — constant action. It really is about Achilles' acts and their consequences, not about his mind. And as for the gods, the Iliadic authors and the Iliadic characters all agree in the acceptance of this divinely managed world. To say the gods are an artistic apparatus is the same kind of thing as to say that Joan of Arc told the Inquisition about her voices merely to make it all vivid to those who were about to condemn her. It is not that the vague general ideas of psychological causation appear first and then the poet gives them concrete pictorial form by inventing gods. It is, as I shall show later in this essay, just the other way around."

[1] [http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of- consciousness_english_...](http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of- consciousness_english_book-one-chapter-three.php)

<comment><USER4> > It really is about Achilles' acts and their consequences, not about his > mind.

I don't understand that. All his actions are driven by his emotions. The first line is "Sing, Goddess, of Achilles' rage" (In the original Greek "rage" is literally the first word). So obviously the mind and emotions of Achilles is the absolute center of the story, driving all the action.

<comment><USER9> Well, I don't speak Greek and understand the historical meaning of Greek terms even less, but I think Jaynes' thesis is that every term we now associate with the mind and with inner emotions was meant in the Illiad to be more like a physical or even an external command of "the Gods" (see his discussion of _psyche_ and _thumos_ ).

That is, while it's now obvious to us these were emotions, the authors of the Illiad didn't perceive them as such -- or so I understand Jaynes argued -- and instead they thought they were either physical things (much like a stomach ache) or a command of "the Gods".

If you speak Greek, what's the exact term for "rage" as written in the Illiad?

\----

edit: ok, found it. Jaynes claims this:

"Even the poem itself is not wrought by men in our sense. Its first three words are _Menin aedie Thea_ , 'Of wrath sing, O Goddess!' And the entire epic which follows is the song of the goddess which the entranced bard 'heard' and chanted to his iron-age listeners among the ruins of Agamemnon's world."

I find it a bit disappointing because even if the singer didn't ascribe feelings to men, he must at least understand the meaning of "wrath" itself. And it seems to me it must be hard to understand this emotion unless you can feel it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Because "feelings" are just after-the-fact, extremely culturally bound, rationalized labels that people are taught to put on the reactive arousal of their sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.

The more dense and plastic civilization becomes, the more important the labels become - because assignment and the discussion of the assignment of these labels becomes the most important signal of ingroup/outgroup, which then means the difference between eating and not eating. For the middle-class professional/management class (the people who make a living based on perceptions of their authority), this leads to a culture of stories that can spend 100x more words saying how somebody feels, why someone feels, and what's wrong or right with that, rather than any physical acts conceivably verifiable by observation.

"Social intelligence" is what a member of the academic middle-class might label this. A different member of the academic middle-class belonging to a entirely different culture (place or time), however, would probably label any particular example the first academic pointed out as "social stupidity," due to their respecting an entirely different set of arbitrary signs mythologizing the same acts.

Before the rise of the medicalization of thought (as psychology), by average people in conversation, and by elites in their theories of scientific social control, what was important was the description of acts and the prediction of acts - but Freud did a number on the West.

Angry and sad were once descriptions about how people looked, and tentative predictions of what they were liable to do (based on past experience of that look.)

/rant

</comment><comment><USER11> Catullus's poems are all about feelings. If we include non-fiction, Augustine's Confessions has a lot of feelings too.

I think that if people were better educated in what actually went on in Medieval and Ancient times, there would be more articles that are better written about it.

<comment><USER4> The article does not say ancient literature does not contain feelings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just a heads up: Apparently the finding that reading literary fiction improves empathy is one of the many studies that have failed to replicate: [https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/10/19/three-labs-just- failed-...](https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/10/19/three-labs-just-failed-to- replicate-the-finding-that-a-quick-read-of-literary-fiction-boosts-your- empathy/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Ancient fiction does talk about feelings; the author evidently hasn't read any to any great degree. I mean, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Iliad to The Tale of the Heike to the Bible; plenty of emotion in all of them, and plenty of description of internal mental state.

It's true the sagas don't so much; mostly because it was a spoken word art form. Duh.

<comment><USER4> The article does not say that ancient fiction does not contain emotion. Actually it doesn't say anything about ancient fiction as all, it contrast _medieval_ fiction to early modern and modern.

The Sagas were an oral tradition - so were the Iliad and Gilgamesh and most of the Bible centuries before they were written down. Does your "Duh" imply some obvious point I am missing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> To be or not to be, that is the question,

<comment><USER14> Shakespeare ain't exactly ancient.</comment></comment>


IBM Files DMCA on OpenLava Scheduler - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/openlava/openlava <comment><USER2> Curious if this is really a copyright issue, or patent issue...

<comment><AUTHOR> Competitive Issue would be my guess...</comment></comment>


Bitcoin, I've Been Here Before - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Wuntusk/bitcoin-ive-been-here-before-bf3279e67f27 <comment><USER2> These "bitcoin = tulip maina = .com bubble" articles get a bit boring after a while especially if one is relatively deeply involved with the space. This has been discussed at very great depths thousands of times already.

What shows how superficial these articles are is that almost all of these articles (and most of the mainstream media articles) single out BTC, (which is less than 50% of total crypto market capitalization) without going into specifics of the given coin (like discussion of cons and pros of on-chain scalability solution vs. second layer scalability solutions, POW, POS, small/big block sizes etc...)

I think it would be a bit more interesting to speak about the price of a continously rebalanced, market-cap weighted index of the top 10 coins or something for mainstream purposes. This would prevent these articles focusing too much on the current state of BTC (which they cannot really focus on anyway without going much deeper), zoom out a bit more, and put the focus more on the possibilities in the whole evolving cryptocurrency space, which would be more interesting for a mainstream audience (they just don't know, because everybody tells them bitcoin, bitcoin, bitcoin).

<comment><USER3> Nobody is using bitcoin for any daily transactions.... at this point is just bits... so, it fails as a cash.

The the second argument is made, it is a "storage" medium, like gold/silver, etc...

At least you could argue that gold/platinium/silver have some intrinsic industrial value, but bitcoin?

<comment><USER2> The vision of the BTC community is that on-chain scalability for payment has no chance anyway (1MByte is capable of 5 orders of magniutde less tx/sec than VISA), so using second layer methods (like lighting network) to do payment is absolutely inevitable anyway. So they keep blocksize small enough that a regular guy with a regular PC can realistically sync-up the network and become a full node, because they think this is needed to be truly decentralized and secure. This possible lighting network future, and also that BTC is the most battle tested, and most forked coin, and has by far the biggest network effect are all included in its price.

My portfolio contains other coins from the top ten so I hedge it with other solutions for scaling, but BTC's share in my portfolio is close to its share in the crypto market cap (a bit less, admittedly).

<comment><USER4> You've described how BTC can scale as a currency, but haven't addressed ardit33's first point, which is that not many people seem to want to use it as a currency in the first place.

<comment><USER2> I speculate that at first people want to use it as a store of value, but after a critical amount of holders, and having a lighting network, users and merchants could also adopt it as a currency.

A conservative scenario is that cryptocurrencies will not really become adopted other than store of value: I think even in this case BTC value can go up tremendously. It has benefits over gold: like easy and fast transport accross countries.

<comment><USER4> > I speculate that at first people want to use it as a store of value, but > after a critical amount of holders, and having a lighting network, users and > merchants could also adopt it as a currency.

Why would they? Why should I buy things with BTC instead of USD? The fact that I've yet to hear a convincing answer to this most fundamental question is the strongest indicator that BTC is a bubble.

I do agree that BTC could become gold, though.

<comment><USER2> If you already adopt it as a store of value it can be convenient to use it also for payment if:

\- it is convenient

\- has low transaction fees

\- fast

But I agree, store of value is the most realistic mainstream usecase of cryptos.

<comment><USER4> USD beats BTC in all of those features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If this article interested you, you might like [https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/](https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/).

And here's more or less the same article from 2013 when price was $84: [https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/12/the-bitcoin- bubble...](https://whistlinginthewind.org/2013/04/12/the-bitcoin-bubble-has- burst/)

"So what now for bitcoin? It will crash and disappear like Pets.com, Leheman Brothers and Anglo Irish Bank, existing only in the memories of economists."

"There have been some slight recoveries which have given hope to bitcoinites. They cling to the hope that this is only a correction and that bitcoin will bounce back stronger than ever. They fail to realise that all crashes include a slight recovery followed by another crash."

I'm not saying the author is necessarily wrong, just highlighting the fact that no one knows what the hell they're talking about or what's going to happen.

<comment><USER6> I will say, as a Bitcoin "hater", Bitcoin is far more resilient than many things it might be compared to.

With Pets.com or Leheman Brothers, there was a corporate structure that could stop existing. It could go bankrupt, the C-executives could be arrested, something could happen beyond which it'd be fair to say it was over.

With Bitcoin, you could have all of the exchanges go defunct, you could have 99% of the miners close up shop, and as long as a few people kept the blockchain going, a few years later it could be back, the same as before.

<comment><USER7> Or just continue on being useful to a small fraction of people. It doesn't have to be this massive market.

<comment><USER8> In case of a massive and rapid reduction in the number of miners and therefore the network hashrate, it would take Bitcoin network difficulty too long to adjust to be useful in short term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To all of those wondering if this article compares Bitcoin to the .com bubble or Tulip bulbs, it's the .com bubble this time. Saved you a click.

<comment><AUTHOR> Username checks out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pardon my very limited knowledge about those things, but one thing I wonder and find fascinating about bitcoin is this : I understand that a very limited number of people, probably the initial developers, hold a very hight percentage of available bitcoin. (disregard the rest in case i'm even completely mistaken in that assumption...) Those people have an asset with an incredibly high face value. Of course, the market is probably far too shallow for them to cash out even a small part of this face value.

The question is this : for those people, assuming or not that they can coordinate, what is the optimal strategy? I'm thinking something like draw regularly, in order to build a war chest to "defend" the cryptocurrency against too violent crashes, such sustaining the confidence of the public. In a way controlling and fine tuning the influx of external money coming in from fools wanting in on the pyramid effect.

Is it realistic to think such strategy could be feasible, and if so, for how much time those people could/would want to sustain it?

<comment><USER11> On the flip side of that, how do you build an economy around a currency that front loads such massive wealth inequality out of the gate?

<comment><USER10> The moral angle is indeed the mindblowing part, but I wanted to sollicit the acute minds of hackernews to shine a light on the practical aspect of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As I recall, back in the day, SoundForge was the lightest and fastest audio editor for _Windows_. (On the Mac there were of course many choices for simple editing, going all the way back to SoundEdit16.) It was a little sad to SoundForge sold to Sony. The author should be proud of that software. There was nothing else comparable for Windows back then, to my knowledge. Interesting that he became involved with something as different as Bitcoin.

<comment><USER13> SoundForge and Vegas used to be great software tools in the 1990s and early 2000s. Unfortunately you had to sell them. Thanks anyway for your story.

Recently Sony sold them to Magix from Germany. Unfortunately the software is lagging behind, basically stayed for decades in low maintenance mode, and Magix software is known to be a cobbled together buggy mess. Their other own video software Video Deluxe is still 32bit buggy unstable piece that relies on decade old dlls and can't be installed on up to date Windows 7/8/10 without deactivating security functions, changing registry settings by hand and renaming the Windows cert folder. Nowadays the open source Audacity is a great alternative to SoundForge, and Premiere/etc are better alternatives to Vegas/VideoDeluxe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Still long on bitcoin, but also wouldn't be surprised if it lost 70% of its value in short term.

He does bring up some great points regarding transaction throughput and the team productivity.

It seems like lightning network is the tool to get a lot of cheap, fast transactions done via bitcoin and turn it into a really useful viable currency.

However, that has taken a long time just to get to test mode. Much of the fate of bitcoin is tied to that github repository and pull requests. There has never been another open source software project with this much money riding on it. Can this team continue to deliver value?

There are other concerns like deflationary spirals, volatility, etc., but my bet on bitcoin is largely a bet on the dev team and whether or not useful pull requests get created & merged and what that velocity is.

</comment><comment><USER15> Or... AMZN, I've Been Here Before. 5.97 in August 2001

<comment><USER16> > Or... AMZN, I've Been Here Before

Me too. Ahh the good old days. We'd be coding and day trading back and forth all day. Take turns watching for the Boss to come towards our area, so we could all hide the trading window and get back to coding.

My co-worker dev lost 3K on PETS.COM's stock in 1 day.

I'd gotten in on 100 shares of AMZN Apr 2000 at $57-ish, ate a loss of about 30$ / share in Oct 2000, sold at $28-ish. All I have left now is war stories ...ending very badly lol. The rush of trading on volatility makes it 'not a complete loss' tho.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Bitcoin as an investment option is pure gamble, unless someone has a better idea e.g. has put its value side-by-side to Gold, Silver, Oil, Adamantium ;) and has noticed a pattern. Perhaps there is pattern, and it is related to the "petyas" of this world (new malware that is massively cashin in/out).

</comment><comment><USER18> 50$ in fees per transaction, I never thought I'd see this day.

For the last 3 years, there has been a bitcoin civil war about how to scale bitcoin, as people have warned that the problems we are seeing now would happen.

And unfortunately for bitcoin, the side that wanted high transaction fees, and wanted to prevent all scaling won the war.

And now we are seeing those problems come home to roost, as segwit (which was marketed as an immediate fix) adoption has been minimal, and the mythical lightning network and layer 2 or 3 solutions that the core development team promises will that will solve everything is perpetually 2 years away from completion.

Things are going exactly as people had predicted.

Those of us who are fed up with these problems have moved on to other coins, such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash.

<comment><USER19> > Those of us who are fed up with these problems have moved on to other coins, > such as Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash.

What do you use those for? In the article above the author mentions you were able to pay for dinner, for various bits and pieces in BTC - even for pizzas, as we all know.

You can't do that with ETH, BCH, or any altcoin, and you can't use BTC for it any more either.

So why move on to other coins?

<comment><USER20> Stripe maintains a big list of prohibited businesses. Some of these are honest consumer protection. Others are there to try to instil Christian values into our money, for instance you may not use Stripe to sell sex toys.

If you ask Stripe, they'll tell you that these restrictions are there because of the requirements of Stripe's partners. And that is exactly the problem.

If we are heading towards a cashless society (and we are), then we need an electronic payment system that does not consult the Bible before deciding whether to allow your payment or not.

<comment><USER21> > that does not consult the Bible before deciding whether to allow your > payment or not.

or the HRC either, for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My main problem with Bitcoin is that it's a deflationary currency, that's really why I _hope_ it doesn't have a future.

I have paid this months bills and rent, I have budgeted some money for groceries and fun, I have put 10% of my pay check in my pension fund.

Something is very wrong if you feel conflicted when you've invested money or spent money to get by because you missed out on your money being worth more.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think Satoshi marketed bitcoin as a currency, but the intention was something that more resembles gold than currency.

Bitcoin as a currency does not make sense from a macroeconomic point of view. Whats the incentive of spending something of a fixed resource?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I prefer monetary policy to be decided by a small cabal of professionals.

<comment><USER24> It's not the small cabal of professionals that irks me. It's the method of increasing the money supply to generate inflation that bothers me. Central bank fiat systems use credit to increase money supply, so banks and people who consume large amounts credit (large capital projects) get the hot money first. Inflation does not apply evenly to everyone in the economy at once. As new money works its way into the economy, price levels rise. It's a rigged system for those close to the central bank.

<comment><USER23> So currently most money gets created when a back offers a loan, how and much is decided by the central bank. The thinking behind the current system is that easier access to credit will increase productive investments and grow the economy, hopefully to offset the inflation incurred by the increase in the money supply.

I agree its a quite blunt instrument, things like mortgages for houses doesn't really tend to grow the economy.

But its a hard problem, personally I would like to see some tinkering with helicopter drops

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Bitcoin will be more relevant soon because there is exponentially more gold/silver/platinum/uranium in the solar system than on Sol-3.

It would be silly to ship in paper every 2 years so people could trade "cash" while working at the methane harvesters and excavators.

Just keep that price constant and we can finally move forward.

<comment><USER26> I haven't carried paper currency as a matter of course for something like 12 years. Most transaction since the Summer in our small UK business have been "contactless" (debit/credit card), though we still took 2 cheques IIRC.

Bitcoin isn't the only alternative to cash.

<comment><USER25> Then the currency will be debit/credit with your bank which has Assets on Sol-3 and the consistent activity there guarantees a steady value on the value of USD, GBP, EUR, etc.

If things do come to pass and a significant carbon mass is shifted off Sol-3 (human population), then currencies will fluctuate since that is what drives steady value. This value will fluctuate as bitcoin is now doing "if" the abundance of rare-earths is transmitted back to the Origin planet.

I'll say it again: "if".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Opinions on streamer bs iota?

</comment><comment><USER28> Blasphemy!!! <jk>

</comment><comment><USER29> Bought at $230, sold at $19450.

That's enough roller coaster for me. I'm out for good.

Here are my issues with Bitcoin:

1\. Transaction times are insane, 30-45 minutes at peak hours. Bitcoin blockchain can only handle ~10TPS. 2\. Fees, upwards of $30 / transaction a few weeks ago. This makes it not practical for any real purchasing or as a currency.

Both of those issues are solved by IOTA and the tangle, so that's where my money is going. I want to invest in a currency that has real world usability. Bitcoin doesn't have that at current scale.

<comment> etr-strike Way to pimp your altcoin at the end there. IOTA isn't even in the same league as bitcoin. It's not decentralized and it's not trustless. Just use SQL at that point...

<comment><USER29> Those points are not accurate.

IOTA uses the coordinator as a security measure right now (against 34% attacks) and will be removed once the coin is distributed enough to diminish probability of attacks. So saying it is not decentralized isn't honest. Without the coordinator it is decentralized.

Point two is also refuted once the coordinator is gone.

<comment><USER27> Opinions on Streamr v Iota?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


StackOverflow to switch to modified MIT License - <AUTHOR> http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271080/the-mit-license-clarity-on-using-code-on-stack-overflow-and-on-the-stack-excha <comment><USER2> tldr; This is about licensing of the code that users post on their Q/A, NOT the source code that powers SO. Further, under new terms, all code posted on SO will be MIT license with an option to "NOT include the MIT terms with your project and only attribute to the author IF requested" \- So, essentially boils down to public domain with moral rights to the author.</comment>


The Care and Feeding of the Android GPU - <AUTHOR> http://www.satine.org/archives/2011/01/01/the-care-and-feeding-of-the-android-gpu/

<comment><USER3> This isn't the first thing I've seen that Google devs really just didn't get. I think it's from the rapid expansion that Google has done. They get people working on things that aren't really their area of expertise because they wanted to try something in their 20% time.

In this case, it's obvious that we've got server people working on mobile code. Future hardware will resolve these inefficiencies? UGH. That's definitely someone from the server world speaking.

<comment><USER4> But the thing is, nobody actually cares about this. I have used an Android phone since the beginning. Touch responsiveness is not something I have ever noticed. Any delay in rendering web pages is due to the network.

I think people that write articles about touch responsiveness or animation latency are suffering from the "benchmarking hello world" problem. Yeah, you could speed that stuff up. But 99% of the time, the phone is waiting for data on a socket, which is not going to get fast any time soon.

<comment><USER5> People care, they just don't know what to call it. People who use iPhones try out an Android device and say things like "it's just not as polished", or just notice that it doesn't feel right. That "not feeling right" is because when you scroll on an iPhone it really feels like there's a piece of paper under the screen that your physically moving around with the tip of you finger. With Android it just feels like your finger is telling a computer what to do, which is in turn doing a reasonably good job of doing it.

<comment><USER6> Twelve years ago or so, I was reformatting my home desktop (then a Linux machine) and I decided to try to change things up a little, so I installed FreeBSD to try it out. I figured that there wouldn't be any superficial differences, but I knew that there were architectural ones that I'd run into eventually and maybe I could learn a little more about how different OSes worked.

One thing I did notice right away was that the console felt different. It felt like it was maybe more responsive somehow, and not just when it was scrolling a wall of text. It even felt different when I was typing. Somehow, typing at a console (not in X, not via SSH) _felt_ better in FreeBSD than it did in Linux. I couldn't tell you why, and I didn't really understand it myself. It wasn't something I could measure, or even describe, but it left me feeling like FreeBSD was more than 'just like Linux'.

I only used it for a day or so before I realized that I'd screwed up the partitioning and wiped out my Windows partition, and so had to re-reformat, but it left a profound impression.

I feel like iOS is the same way. All the Android phones I've tried (including a friend's Nexus One) have been, theoretically, the same as an iPhone in terms of features and capabilities and even hardware, but even before I got into using them in depth there was just something that felt a little off about tapping on icons or scrolling lists, and I could never put my finger on it, so to speak. Perhaps it's just design decisions or usage patterns that I'd internalized already, but I've always felt like it was something more. Maybe the scrolling behaviour is something I picked up on unconsciously, because while I don't remember it being slow or jerky, I do remember it didn't _feel_ right.

Perhaps the numbers-oriented engineers at Google can't quantify it and so don't prioritize it, or maybe they just don't think it's worth wasting time on, but I think consumers, in the end, will notice. The real question is how many will actually care, and how many will shrug it off because of the benefits (perceived or real) that Android provides them over the iPhone?

<comment><USER7> Wow, I totally had the same experience with FreeBSD about 15 years ago. I have no idea if it persists on modern hardware, though.

Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

<comment><USER8> At that time the FreeBSDs scheduler was much better than Linux'. I had the same feeling about FreeBSDs responsiveness.

I had a similar perception with Solaris on SPARC. It was slower overall but more responsive when interacting on the shell. Sometimes I had high load (10 or more) and did not notice when using a shell in a terminal.

I think Linux got much better since then. I don't feel the difference on current FreeBSD, Solaris or Linux installations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone who thinks Android's animation is "fast enough" is either using a faster device than I have ever tried, or has never tried to compare, say, scrolling lists versus the iPhone.

I'm not saying the GPU is the answer, and maybe 2.3 is the answer, but ignoring the problem is not.

(Edit: So why does a GC pause stop animation, and not just by taking up CPU time, since moving to the GPU would help in that case? Is the animation code itself written in Java and waiting on the GC? If so, I bet rewriting it in C would be a massive help. Also, yuck.)

<comment><USER10> Gingerbread has a concurrent GC, so animation should not stop completely. However, on a single core system I wouldn't expect this to have a huge impact. But this is just my personal guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Apparently touch responsiveness is improved in 2.3. However this article doesn't really explain what's wrong with it. I've been doing latency benchmarks for touch recently, and the highest latency I've seen for touch delivery is 10ms. Now 10ms is pretty terrible for what should be a very straightforward thing, but on the other hand it's only 2/3 of a frame, at 60 FPS.

The argument in favour of a GPU-accellerated GUI which is not mentioned here is battery life. I haven't been testing this side of things, but just because a CPU can do a 60 FPS GUI doesn't mean it should. Deferring it to the GPU would certainly reduce power consumption while navigating a UI. Whether this is non-negligible in terms of overall battery life, I'm not sure.

<comment><USER12> Are those 10ms with a realistic app/usage scenario ? I wouldn't think users would complain about 10ms, isn't that below the threshold of perception ?

<comment><USER13> A stutter 2/3 of a frame long means there's a 2/3 chance that you'll draw a frame that doesn't match the current finger position, followed by a frame that catches up more than it should have had to.

The ~40ms input lag shown by most desktop IPS LCD monitors is noticeable even though it falls below the reaction time. On a touch display, it should be even easier to notice input lag, because you can see your finger moving and the screen around it not keeping up. 10ms sensor lag may be below the threshold of perception for circumstances like this, but probably not by much. If you add even a few milliseconds of processing lag after your app receives the touch event, you'll be behind by a frame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the android bug linked in the article is much more informative than the article itself.

Basically: 1) Android phones can already animate the screen @ 60 fps in software in most cases. 2) When they can't, it's not because the CPU is too slow, it's because there is other stuff happening (GC, etc.). A GPU can't fix that.

<comment><AUTHOR> The GPU can offload most of the graphics intensive tasks from the CPU, utilizing the GPU instead of letting it sit idle. freeing the CPU to focus on GC tasks. In addition, most of the animation work done with Dalvik code can be moved into a dedicated thread / task with highly optimized code backing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the author nails it. Without GPU acceleration Android really is a notch below iOS in terms of UX. In my opinion, even WebOS and Windows 7 have much smoother scrolling and touch response than Android. But if Google wakes up and adds GPU acceleration and better eye-candy, watch out Apple.

</comment><comment><USER16> Purely by chance, I was trying out a galaxy tab at a store today. I loaded up the Financial Times web site, which took an age because the store wifi was crap and tried scrolling the web page and it stuttered quite a bit at first then smoothed up, zooming as juddery as well. Did the same thing on an ipad - slow loading about the same, but the instant the page was rendered it scrolled and zoomed perfectly.

Also the widget for editing the web page URL on the Tab was a horrible usability car crash. What's up with that? Disclosure - iPhone user, but Android curious.

</comment><comment><USER17> Android's VM can improve perf-wise - <USER2> [http://blogs.oracle.com/javaseembedded/2010/11/how_does_andr...](http://blogs.oracle.com/javaseembedded/2010/11/how_does_android_22s_performance_stack_up_against_java_se_embedded.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> It doesn't matter what the solution is, but Google need to prioritise UI responsiveness above all else. Until that happens, the UI on Android will suck.

</comment><comment><USER19> What is the main performance difference between Vista SP1 and Windows 7? Hardware accelerated UI.</comment>


For the Most Vulnerable, California Blackouts 'Can Be Life or Death' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/california-power-outage.html <comment><AUTHOR> I am curious how others here who depend on medical equipment in their every day lives are preparing for blackout events?</comment>


Hackers Spawn Web Supercomputer on Way to Chess World Record - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/06/43651/

<comment><USER2> Met Ruan and John at the Hack Reactor open house two weeks ago. Super nice guys and Smidge is a great concept. Really happy to see it get some recognition.</comment>


George Kennan's "Long Telegram" (1946) - <AUTHOR> http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm <comment><USER3> If you enjoyed this, please do read Nikolai Novikov's (then Soviet Ambassador to the US) analysis of US Foreign Policy in a similar fashion, but from the perspective of the USSR. The Novikov Telegram (1946) is considered the soviet equivalent of George Kennan's Long Telegram.

[http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110808.pdf?v...](http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110808.pdf?v=c46f797bf3d939c2c328ac98eb778f09)

<comment><USER4> Kennan stressed the paranoia of the Soviet leadership. In the telegram you linked, you read things like:

"All these facts clearly show that their armed forces are designed to play a decisive role in the realization of plans to establish American world domination."

If viewed slantwise, this has a nugget of truth, i.e., the U.S. is establishing forward military bases partly to protect free trade and enable capitalism.

But these bases proved to be almost entirely defensive and were not really used for "world domination" in the sense meant by the Soviet ambassador.

<comment><USER3> The document vindicates a lot of the analysis that Kennan makes in his article. However, we do have to acknowledge the outlook that drove the party line. Among the recipients of this telegram were Stalin and Molotov (then Minister of Foreign Affairs), which I think would explain some of the extreme rhetoric here. Also note, that unlike the Kennan Telegram (which was published in Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym "Mr. X") the Novikov telegram wasn't meant for public consumption. It was part of the Glasnost files which came out in the 90s.

That being said, from the Soviet perspective, the United States -- during "peace time", had rapidly increased military spending and presence around the world. This only goes in to feed the "neurotic" world view that Kennan cited in his article.

 _" At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it."_

<comment><USER5> Kennan's telegram wasn't published. It was written by Kennan to impress his understanding on Truman as he took office. The X article was a separate piece of writing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is still relevant today. As Kennan points out, Marxism was a mere "moral fig leaf" covering the nakedness of "insecure nationalism".

The fig leaf seems to have been replaced in the era of Putin by a sort of generalized disdain for the west, and for western ideas like democracy and liberalism (in the sense of the word used in Europe, not the US).

But nothing ever really changes for the Russian state. Putin's Russia can be described and understood in the same terms as Soviet Russia and Czarist Russia before it.

I'll end by pointing out, again, as Kennan does, that I'm referring to the Russian state, rather than its long suffering people, who are some of the most warm hearted and genuine folks I've ever met.

<comment><USER7> You can draw parallels between autocratic periods in Russian history, but then you lose everything that's interesting and end up with a kind of cartoon.

Even in Soviet times, when the ruling class was tied into the straitjacket of Marxist ideology, there were large shifts in foreign policy and attitude towards the outside world as different factions assumed power.

Russia has a complicated relationship with the West that is not well served by a simplistic reading of its history.

<comment><USER8> I think you are correct in that for a long time many in Russia looked to the West for culture and even political ideas. Unfortunately, Soviet communism's explicit goal was to overthrow liberalism, and Putin is hardly any more friendly.

<comment><USER6> It goes back and forth. There's a constant tension in Russia's history between the West and "East", used in this context to mean an essentially anti-western turn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It should be noted that later in life Keenan was distraught by the extreme anti-communist hysteria and need for containment that was inspired by his telegram and general foreign policy views [0]. It seems that postwar US was much more cordial and trusting of the Soviet Union but quickly swung to other side as it became clear that Stalin was interested only in grabbing as much land as possible to form a sizeable buffer between Russia and western Europe. Which seems reasonable: German forces had reached the outskirts of Moscow and an unbelievable number of Russians died in the war.

I highly highly recommend the Wise Men [1].

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan#Academic_care...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan#Academic_career_and_later_life) [1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Wise-Men-Friends-World- They/dp/147672...](https://www.amazon.com/Wise-Men-Friends-World- They/dp/1476728828)

<comment><USER10> _"...as it became clear that Stalin was interested only in grabbing as much land as possible to form a sizeable buffer between Russia and western Europe. Which seems reasonable: German forces had reached the outskirts of Moscow and an unbelievable number of Russians died in the war._"

Wanting a buffer does seem reasonable, and you are correct that Russia suffered considerably during WW2.

But _what Russia did_ with that buffer, and the countries therein, is a damning indictment of Communism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Most interesting, thank you for posting. Kennan in his memoirs remarked that timing was a large part of its influence: a bit earlier and it would have been ignored, a bit later and it would have seemed obvious.

Kennan's memoirs and histories are interesting and well written. Those wishing for a taste might have a look at _Sketches from a Life_ , which is relatively short and still in print.

</comment><comment><USER12> This was most of the Cablegate leaks - not scandals, but these kinds of peeks into the opinions of very smart State Department officials regarding assorted foreign countries. (The scandals usually involved foreign allies that the State Department doesn't think too highly of, like many of the Arab dictatorships that soon after experienced the Arab Spring.)

<comment><USER13> A British Ambassador leaving his post was encouraged to write what was known as a valedictory despatch, to be circulated to a small number of influential people in government. This was the parting shot, an opportunity to offer a personal and frank view of the host country, the manners and morals of its people, their institutions, the state of their cooking and their drains. But it was also a chance to let rip at the Foreign Office itself and to look back on a career spent in the service of a sometimes ungrateful nation.

They where normally quite blunt there is a great book collating some of the best [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parting-Shots-Matthew- Parris/dp/067...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parting-Shots-Matthew- Parris/dp/0670919292)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> We talked about this telegram in one of my classes in college - <USER2> Nuclear Politics. The professor, who had been in the Foreign Service for 20-odd years before moving to academia, had a (somewhat) joking theory that Kennan's Long Telegram had done more harm than good, because it inspired countless other Foreign Service Officers to write Long Telegrams of their own in the hopes of having similar levels of influence.

</comment><comment><USER15> Some context for the "Long Telegram" can be found here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Article)

</comment><comment><USER16> Here is an interview with Kennan that puts certain things in perspective in post-Cold War era.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs- no...](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word- from-x.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> if you're interested in this stuff, also check out "nsc 68", which is the actual policy material this stuff evolved into. then also the latest reincarnation of all this, "rebuilding america's defenses" by project for new american century.</comment>


Ask HN: Simple Explanation of Bayesian Logic - <AUTHOR> Anybody know of a good tutorial/primer for programmers about how to use Bayesian constructs? I looked on Wiki and my eyes immediately started to glaze over. <comment><USER2> I think the best introduction remains <http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes>, by our own Eliezer.

<comment><USER3> Fully agreed. I've been very impressed by the clarity of that article and recommend it often in online discussions of research methodology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I always like to think of an application when learning new concepts. Bayesian theory is often used in machine learning, for example, where the "learning" is simply done by updating a bayesian equation. In ML you often have this:

posterior probability = conditional probability * marginal probability.

where,

marginal prob is an initial guess (ie you have two boxes and the probability of choosing one is 5/10)

conditional probability is typically an observation given the marginal (ie you look inside one of the boxes and there are 4 red balls and 2 green balls, so the probability of a red ball in box 1 is 4/6 or 2/3.)

posterior is the simply the probability of those two multiplied together (ie 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3).

Now, in ML, because of a property called conjugacy...you can use this posterior probability to update the learning process. In the next iteration, you would use 1/3 as your initial marginal prob guess.

If you're looking for good tutorials, I would suggest:

Paul Graham's Spam Bayes filter:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/better.html>

Andrew Moore's Statistical learning tutorials:

<http://www.autonlab.org/tutorials/>

Christopher Bishop's Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning- Chapter 1: Probability Theory

[http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/cmbishop/prml/...](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/cmbishop/prml/slides/prml-slides-1.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER5> Programming Collective Intelligence by Toby Segarin is a gentle introduction to many ML topics include Bayesian classifiers.</comment>


Ask HN: What is a blog/podcast you'd really like to share? - <AUTHOR> Post a blog/podcast you'd like to share with HN. Include a short description what the blog/podcast is about. <comment><USER2> Dan Carlin's Hardcore History

[http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history- series/](http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/)

Engaging storytelling on some of the selected historic periods or events. Sometimes a little biased but well worth listening to.

In Our Time

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl)

It can be hit or miss. But if you find a topic that matches with your interests it is usually very well covered.

The Ezra Klein Show

[http://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast](http://www.vox.com/ezra-klein- show-podcast)

I like this guy and he usually has interesting guests.

Penn's Sunday School

[http://pennsundayschool.com](http://pennsundayschool.com)

Podcast of Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller) usually pretty random but fun to listen to if you like magic, are an atheist or if you have libertarian views. Quality of episodes varies a lot.

</comment><comment><USER3> How I Built This - Interviews with entrepreneurs about how they built their companies [http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built- this](http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this)

Every single episode has been great and many of them aren't purely tech companies which is a nice change from other startup podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER4> Tanis! OMG Tanis. Found it through a recommendation from Reply All (which is also great). It's a serialized docudrama about mystery, conspiracy, mythology, so much. Give it a shot, it'll hook you.

</comment><comment><USER5> Close to what you want but not quite:

I am hooked on machinist videos on youtube, Abom, this old tony, NY CNC, even AVE... theres a big list of people showing off how it is done, and I can't get enough of it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Startups For The Rest Of Us

Helps developers, designers and entrepreneurs be awesome at launching software products. Whether they've built their first product or are just thinking about it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Mystery Show on Gimlet

Just six episodes because the host solves real life (albeit minor) mysteries and it takes a lot of time to do a single one. Each is a gem.

<comment><USER8> Have you listened to Serial? I was thinking this would be something like that ;)

<comment><USER7> I have not -- it's different in that it's not a serial story -- each is completely independent.

Also, it's _probably_ funnier since the mysteries are more trivial than murder. Despite that, there are many poignant moments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> S-Town - it's like Serial and is very well done!</comment>


Flickr Co-Founder Caterina Fake on the Value of Viral Loops - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/node/1402994/print

<comment><USER2> I got a shout out, woo-hoo!

I think tagging is best when people tag items that aren't theirs. Otherwise they are inclined to abuse it as a distribution mechanism. If tagging well- served photos, then why do they have Groups Sets Collections, etc? Hmph.

I also disagree that tagging was responsible for flickr's success.

(2001, not 2004 for creating it, incidentally.)

</comment><comment><USER3> In this article in really sounds like Catherina Fake regrets her decision of selling Flickr. It must be a very hard decision : accept 40 M$ or keep growing very personal work.

What I found interesing is that she underlines the fact that Flickr has been (is) very popular because of special circonstances, the fact that digital cameras began to be cheap and widespread, more and more people blogging...

It seems like Flickr became successful in a large part because of a lot of luck.

<comment><USER4> _It must be a very hard decision : accept 40 M$ or keep growing very personal work._

It sounds _agonizing._

<comment><USER3> Well I genuinely think that it must be a difficult decision to leave years of personal work behind, the decision making on your own project and the potential of an higher bid. But that's just my personal perspective, a more rational point of view is of course obvious.

In my opinion the aquisition didn't benefit the Flickr project very much (for the users), I have the feeling that it is stagnating right now.

<comment><USER5> Serious question: If it's stagnating, what needs improving?

<comment><USER6> Bigger photos for one. It's painful to look at photos in the current fixed format. Have you seen the size of monitors today?

In general I also find the management interface a bit awkward. Perhaps a few weekend of kill a feature are needed. I think they've tried to be all things to a rather diverse user group and have suffered b/c of it.

It's still fantastic though!

<comment><USER5> What features would you keep in the management interface?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Viral loops is a great book, I picked it up a few days ago. If only it had a kindle edition.

<comment><USER8> It's on Kindle now. Maybe they added it in just the past couple of days.

<comment><USER7> haha, amazing. I literally checked two days ago and it wasn't available, it arrived yesterday and today its on kindle.</comment></comment></comment>


Psilocybin Could Become the Next Legalized Drug - <AUTHOR> https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/a25794550/psilocybin-mushrooms-legalization-medical-use/ <comment><USER2> At what point does the no medical benefits known portion of psilocybin and marijuana's schedule 1 status become so blatantly untrue that they are rescheduled? Allowing them to be useful to the entire legal population and federally legalized drugs as opposed to piecemeal state by state.

<comment><USER3> When pharma has the patents etc in order, and has done their dance with the FDA.

<comment><USER2> True that. That explains why cannabis is further along in "legalization" than psilocybin.</comment></comment></comment>


The 4 Golden Signals of API Health and Performance in Cloud-Native Applications - <AUTHOR> https://blog.netsil.com/the-4-golden-signals-of-api-health-and-performance-in-cloud-native-applications-a6e87526e74 <comment><USER2> How does this compare with New Relic? And Datadog?

<comment><AUTHOR> New Relic is a code embedded agent, Netsil is not. Netsil captures all the traffic through the network layer using Remote PCAP agents so no change to application code is required. Same for Datadog.

Also, Netsil monitors at the service level and not infrastructure level. So you get more fine-grained metrics related to your service health without code instrumentation. It is also a self-hosted product and not a SaaS service like Datadog.

You can read more here: [https://blog.netsil.com/listen-to-your-apis-see-your- apps-a9...](https://blog.netsil.com/listen-to-your-apis-see-your- apps-a91ece5aa5bd)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Monitoring calls made to external APIs isn't easy. The article touches on a nice approach to do so.</comment>


China: Vote as I say - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18836744

<comment><USER2> China is interesting. It's not like USA with just a population of 310,000,000, it has 1,330,000,000 people.

If one group successfully causes enough political unrest, and 5% of the population supports and follows this group, that's a total of 66,500 000 people, the current population of the UK. Its astounding when you start looking at numbers like this. USA, UK, Europe and the Western world will just be a distant memory when China and India start becoming major players.

How can a democracy successfully emerge when you have the potential to introduce great divergence and even possibly civil war?

<comment><USER3> > USA, UK, Europe and the Western world will just be a distant memory when > China and India start becoming major players.

As individual entities, perhaps. As a bloc? NATO member countries total population is about 800 million, if I'm not mistaken. The Western world is hardly going to disappear.

<comment><USER4> Not just a bloc of NATO countries, but also with Russia, which seems to be eagerly invited into organizations such as G8 (= G7 + Russia). With Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, the total population of such a bloc is 1 billion. I can forsee the US, France, Germany, and Russia soon forming a proto-military alliance, to give them the option to counter-balance China if they need to one day.

And of course the US, unlike China, has immigration as its foundation. They could accept, say, 20 million educated and/or wealthy immigrants from China over the next 20 years, with no shortage of takers ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2660178> ), which would strengthen America and weaken China.

<comment><USER5> Russia has always been against NATO and lately it is pushing hard for a strong SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) [1] which is branded as Russia's/China's answer to NATO.

The current major issue with SCO though is it needs either India or Pakistan or both as its members to make it a formidable military alliance. But since India and Pakistan are archrivals there are differences between Russia, which has always backed India, and China, which has always backed Pakistan.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation)

<comment><USER6> > Russia has always been against NATO and lately it is pushing hard for a > strong SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) [1] which is branded as > Russia's/China's answer to NATO.

This is true. In the long term, Russia needs to decide whether it wants to be a satellite of China, or part of NATO / the West.

Bear in mind that SCO isn't actually a military alliance (with mutual defence obligations) _yet_ , although it may become so in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Genuinely independent electoral candidates in Taiwan, who in some cases won executive offices with substantial decision-making power, first ran decades ago. Even when Taiwan was unmistakably a one-party dictatorship (the first time I lived there), there was more contesting of more consequential elections than there yet is in China. China has a LONG way to go to all of its talented, diligent people opportunity to shape the policies they live under.

</comment><comment><USER8> Voting in elections != Democracy</comment>


IPad App Store Details Announced - <AUTHOR>

iPad will begin shipping soon and your opportunity to be part of the grand opening of the iPad App Store starts today. Submit your iPad app now for an initial review by the App Review Team and receive feedback on its readiness for the grand opening. Submit Your App by March 27. • Build and test your iPad app using iPhone SDK 3.2 beta 5 available on the iPhone Dev Center. Only iPad apps built with iPhone SDK 3.2 beta 5 will be accepted for this initial review.<p>• Upload your distribution signed app through iTunes Connect by Saturday, March 27, 5pm PDT. • The App Review Team will review your app on iPad and email you details about the readiness of your app. • You will also receive additional information about submitting your app for final review before iPad ships. • Only apps submitted for the initial review will be considered for the grand opening of the iPad App Store. <comment><AUTHOR> Critical detail is that they are separating 'considered for the grand opening of the iPad App Store' from the actual submission.

To me, that says that they will test submitted apps on actual iPads, then accept the ones that actually work. The rest would then get feedback that they need to test first in order to go live.</comment>


Twin Peaks killing raises questions about algorithm that helped free suspect - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Twin-Peaks-killing-raises-questions-about-11797572.php <comment><USER2> Is bail just? (Separate from the algorithm's impartiality)</comment>


Ask HN: Why is Python the preferred language, when it comes to Machine Learning? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I guess one major reason is the NumPy library, which is very useful for complex math and popular in the academic world.</comment>


Canadian police will text cellphones that pinged tower near homicide - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/ontario-police-will-send-text-messages-to-try-and-find-killer/article/478165 <comment><USER2> Not really sure what I should think about that. One the one hand it sounds like a great idea and could really help solving the case. On the other hand, getting a court order for that much data so easily is worrying.

IMO, it would be better if the police sent the text and tower details to phone companies and they forward it. That way, no numbers have to be disclosed to the police. But I generally like the idea.</comment>


Practical Suggestion for Legislation to Address Preventing Oil Spills - <AUTHOR> http://keithhennessey.com/2010/06/16/war-on-fossil-fuels/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hennessy proposes the following legislation

       1. Require that all deepwater wells have a relief well in place before
          production begins.
       2. Mandate requirements for double piping and a list of other industry
          engineering best practices.  The prior best practice for engineering safety
          becomes the legally mandated minimum.
       3. Mandate that each deepwater drilling operation be insured for at
          least $20 B of environmental damage before production can begin.  Insurers
          will therefore require further engineering stringency to protect themselves.
       4. Raise the legal liability cap for any drilling platform to
          $50 B, just to be safe.
       5. All new wells must meet all of the above requirements, and all
          existing wells must cease production until they meet them.
          (The details here might need some work.)</comment>


Ask HN: What are some good podcasts for webapp hacking? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Dunno about podcasts, but IMO the fastest way to build powerful webapps is brandid.github.io/parse-angular-demo</comment>


50,000 dutch nurses use NFC phones daily - <AUTHOR> http://movesonrails.com/journal/2011/8/30/50000-dutch-nurses-use-nfc-phones-daily.html

<comment><USER2> It's kind of frightening to think of Nedap operating in the healthcare industry. This is the same company responsible for the insecure and unverifiable voting machines that were eventually banned in at least the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany. I really hope they're not processing any privacy sensitive information.

<comment><USER3> Election systems is just one of their business units though: <http://www.nedap.com/index.php?cat_id=31>

While it's the same company isn't it a bit of a stretch? It's like saying Microsoft is awful because they make an awful search engine Bing.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, it's a weird way to pose this. As I recall, it was never the company or their specific voting machines that was the subject of discussion, but rather the idea of using closed (and thus unverifiable) voting machines produced by a commercial company for general elections. Stating that this makes the company evil or unreliable seems a bit dishonest to me.

Full disclosure: I am a former employee (I worked on the product mentioned in this article), but I joined the company much after the voting machines were in the news, so what I know is pretty much what was in the media at the time.

<comment><USER3> Being able to use a radio to know who voted what because of electronic interference emitted by a voting machine is not just a "closed voting machine by a commercial company" problem, but one of pure negligence, ignorance and poor workmanship. If you design a voting machine, you design and test for those requirements.

<comment><USER4> Wasn't that another product? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking> These hacks are pretty clever.

Either way, you have a point. If anything, the efforts of hackers have upped the requirements of anyone who still has the guts to produce voting machines (and created awareness of the increased costs with their customers) and this is a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> OK, I'll ask; What does "NFC" stand for?

<comment><USER6> Near Field Communications - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So it's a digital timecard system where the patient is required to keep a special ID?

Certainly sees neat, but why not just base the whole app off GPS data and skip the cards for 'billing' completely?

<comment><AUTHOR> Primarily because tracking people 24/7 through GPS in their phone is a privacy no-no. Next tot that: GPS is really unreliable in buildings and oldfolks tend to live in appartment blocks. Also hight (floor) is an issue as well as battery life.

<comment><USER7> Why would nurses, who have been given the phones in the first place (and do the billing) not be able to run 24/7 GPS on their own phones? Also, it wouldn't even have to be 24/7, if they work from 9-5 then its only during those hours.

Also, why would this be a no-no? How do you think map applications work? And 'local recommendations' apps?

EDIT: Add link to Apple / Google tracking GPS on phones [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-apple-track-users- lo...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-apple-track-users-location- information/story?id=13436330)

<comment><AUTHOR> Currently the battery of the phone lasts for at least a week. With GPS this would be reduced to a day or less. Also location services are opt in. You would not be able to opt-out of time tracking through GPS, which makes a big difference. The article you linked actually to explains the dangers of location tracking in great detail. You should read it :)

<comment><USER7> I have read it and linked to it because it is actually happening. You suggested its a 'no-no', which is definitely not the case.

I think you may believe I want the patient to carry the phone, but I am suggesting the nurse.

My father worked in Public health for 40 years, two decades ago we explored the idea of cards such as this for patients, but came to the conclusion they fell short for a variety of reasons, including patients losing the devices, patients transferring to different clinics and not having their original card etc etc. As is the case with current medical records, there is a stronger guarantee the doctors will be able to review existing case history is the data and files are stored with the hospital or care provider, not receiver.

Finally, I am pretty sure the nurse can charge a phone daily.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Free Software Foundation Receives $1M Donation from Pineapple Fund - <AUTHOR> https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-receives-1-million-donation-from-pineapple-fund <comment><USER2> With the apparent volatility that Bitcoin has, how will they decide when to cash that out? Any amount is obviously good for the FSF but maximizing the donation may be a bit tricky with the current markets.

<comment><USER3> I would expect them to do so imminently to normalize it into the budget. If someone gave them $1M worth of gold I would not expect them to sit on it (what possible use would FSF have with gold as a material?), but rather convert it into resources which then can be used to fund projects.

<comment><USER4> I wonder how easy it would be to liquidate these bitcoins? I would imagine that Joe Blow tries to liquidate the same amount, alarm bells would ring very loudly.

<comment><USER5> It is not easy, especially if you don't already have an account at a Bitcoin exchange. See my other comment at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16277833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16277833) for more details (tl;dr: we've been looking/signing up for exchanges for over 3 weeks and none have responded to our signup request yet).

<comment><USER5> To clarify, by "we" I don't mean FSF. I work for a different 501(c)(3) non- profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "Free software is more than open source; it is a movement that encourages > community collaboration and protects users' freedom,"

Glad to see people who clearly understand that "Open Source" does not encompass everything.

<comment><USER7> It refers to almost the same software. The difference is more on emphasis and what you care about than the set of software it refers to. It's about the underlying philosophy.

I say this because it's important to remember that open source is also intended to refer to a strict definition that also addresses user freedoms. The open source definition for example forbids discriminating against fields of endeavour and says the software should be usable for any purpose. "Open source" doesn't just mean visible source.

OpenBSD calls itself free software despite being opposed to copyleft, for example. Open source and free software are more allies than enemies, and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom. They just express it in different ways and to a different degree.

<comment><USER8> > and I think it's important to remember that both want user freedom

As a free software activist, I haven't found that to be true. Remember that the term "open source" was created explicitly to sell the development methodology to businesses without talking about the ethical issues.

When developers write software under the umbrella of "open source", many aren't even aware of software freedom issues---they may be doing it because their peers are doing it; because they were told they should do it for a portfolio to get a job; or maybe because they like sharing their software with others. Some businesses liberate their code merely for contributions or press.

That's certainly not the case for all open source developers---there is, as you said, an overlap. But it's important to use the term "free software" and talk about software freedom to start those discussions and get people thinking about software freedom.

<comment><USER9> As a free software activist, do you think our effectual software freedoms would have advanced as far as they have without OSI's emphasize on the practical aspects of libre software? Do you think Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens could have made similar inroads with businesses if they had stuck to the (ambiguous, IMO) "free software" moniker?

<comment><USER8> I can't speculate what the norm might be today if businesses were talking about free software instead of "open source". It might have provided benefit to the movement, or it might have diluted the term. Ironically, in making the distinction between open source and free software, we have the opportunity to clarify its meaning and make a clear distinction between methodology and ethics/ideology.

Open source---regardless of whether history would have been different if the term had never originated---has contributed significantly to the dissemination of free software and the amount of software released under free licenses. But it's completely disproportionate to the amount it has advanced the principles of software freedom.

Is it good that more people are using free software? Is it good that there is so much of it available? Absolutely---I'm able to run a fully free system, down to the BIOS. But I'm among a small group that does so on principle, and will not abandon freedom for proprietary software that is more feature-rich, performant, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please cash that out before this whole Tether mess unwinds.

<comment><USER11> I'm not expert (really, shocking I know), is there a scenario where the market starts going and the well known coins become the store of value?

If the throttle is on converting back to fiat currency, then BTC/ETH/(LTC?) will be in demand and have the longest hold periods since they are currently the gateway out.

<comment><USER12> Sort of. If this goes the same way it did with mtgox in 2013, we should expect to see bitcoin prices shoot up in the tether exchanges and go down in the USD exchanges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is incredible, money being put to good use. Just a taste of what's to come in the future as more and more money is transferred to the people.

<comment><USER14> >as more and more money is transferred to the people

Where do you think this money came from in the first place? You think the value of bitcoin was driven up by the 1%? Or magically created by gnomes like fractional reserve lending?

<comment><USER3> If we want to be philosophical then answer is very simple. The money comes from people who want to buy bitcoins.

Then we can ask why people want to buy bitcoins and the answer get a bit more complex but usefully branches into two areas. People want to either speculate (gamble) that the coins will increase in value because they think others also think that the value will increase and thus it will, or they want to buy the bitcoins because it enables them to buy objects for which bitcoins serves as value tokens.

Which in turn leads us to ask about the nature of value tokens. Why do we use them, the history, intrinsic values, and so on.

<comment><USER15> As far as I know the value of Bitcoin doesn't match the funds invested. So while the money comes from people wanting to buy Bitcoin, the value comes from "the market". But of course then you also have to consider where these Bitcoin comes from. The previous is only strictly true if the person making the donation is a miner or investor. It could also come from selling drugs, hacking or exit scamming.

<comment><USER16> The money will come from whoever takes the other side of the trade. It's worth a million if there are buyers willing to pay for that much Bitcoin.

For what it's worth, I glanced at a chart and GDAX alone seems to have done 300 million in trades over the last 24 hours.

Seems like a lot? I'm wondering who is still buying Bitcoin on the way down. Or is it all day-trading?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> $1m or 91.45 BTC? EFF and HN should both know better and use the actual BTC value, that isn't vulnerable to 30% / day value changes.

<comment><USER18> Well they're not going to be buying anything in bitcoin, might as well talk about the real world value. Better yet, cash out as soon as they can...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Huge congrats FSF!

</comment><comment><USER20> do the funds sent to these recipients remain btc and are leveraged against as an asset or are they converted to fiat?

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as $1M, is in fact, $903818.64.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not a million dollars, it's bitcoin. Good luck cashing that out. Please denote it as such...

<comment><USER23> What are you even talking about? Bitcoin is super liquid with high trading volumes. You can literally convert 100 Bitcoin to $1,000,000 USD in seconds, 24/7, anywhere in the world, without moving the market very much.

<comment><USER5> I work for a non-profit that has been trying since the beginning of January to get an account at an exchange that will convert a Bitcoin donation we received to USD. So far we have not had any luck, since many (most?) exchanges are not accepting new customers (or explicitly state that reviewing new account applications is their lowest priority) and those that do still accept new customers have multi-week wait times for opening accounts (at one exchange we've been waiting over 3 weeks ago with no reply yet).

As a result, we cannot "literally convert 100 Bitcoin to $1,000,000 USD in seconds", or even 0.001 Bitcoin. In fact, we can't even do so in 3 weeks (and counting).

Could you point us to an exchange that is accepting new signups and will verify an account for a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization within a day (or even a week)?

<comment><USER24> [https://cumberlandmining.com](https://cumberlandmining.com)

Note: they have a $100k min

<comment><USER5> Thanks very much! That would work fine for us. I'll have to check with others at our org to ensure we can provide all the information, but at least they're upfront about what is likely to be required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's a shame that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and others who have benefited so much from the work of organizations like the FSF don't pony up. These companies are notably absent from the current list of patrons[1].

[1]: [https://www.fsf.org/patrons](https://www.fsf.org/patrons)

<comment><USER26> There's something very contrary about expecting payment/compensation for FSF software. "Its free! Except if its useful; then it should cost you money!" That's a strange guilt-trip.

I understand the impulse though. We all believe our hard work at creating something of value should be compensated. But it flies in the face of the 'free software' ideology. Which is why I don't endorse open projects at all.

Or don't I understand the FSF at all? That's possible.

<comment><USER27> Free Software means free as in speech not free as in beer.

<comment><USER26> I hear that all the time. It means absolutely nothing to me. Beer is not free; speech is 'free of certain restrictions'. What part is that phrase getting at?

<comment><USER27> Spanish has two words for free: libre and gratis. Libre means freedom and gratis means at no cost. English is confusing because we use the same word for both meanings.

Also, Beer is free at my house. Come over anytime!

<comment><USER28> If you brew beer from scratch at home and share your recipe then your beer can be both libre and gratis!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is money that could have been better spent to fund something more useful. I stopped supporting the Free Software Foundation once they starting making compromises in their mission and failed to give proper funding to critical infrastructure components that are part of the GNU Project. While they did say :

> Increase innovation and the number of new projects in high priority areas of > free software development, including the GNU Project;

I'll believe it when I see it. We have become too dependent on core components that are not being properly maintained, lack funding or both. This won't solve the funding issue if these funds are squandered on a bunch of new projects and management.

I won't give another dime to the FSF until management changes, campaigns actually does something engaging with the community and more funding is put towards critical GNU components (instead of new bloated projects). I still support the idea of Libre / Free Software, just not the religion and church that popped up around it. I'd like to see an organization that advocates for Free Software and is consistent in their mission (Hint : OSI and the Linux Foundation are not a fit).

<comment><USER30> You criticize the FSF's software management, but software maintenance is the least important thing the foundation does in my opinion. (I mean I don't need a new `grep` release every month, I could actually use a version from 2004)

They take care of longer term issues, such as enforcing the GPL, defending it in lawsuits, writing good free software licences, raising awareness about issues (DRM, vendor lock-in, etc.), increasing free software use around the world.

<comment><USER29> > ...software maintenance is the least important thing the foundation does in > my opinion. (I mean I don't need a new `grep` release every month, I could > actually use a version from 2004)

So, critical components that have issues : GPG, GNU TLS, GCC, Make, glibc, etc... are not important? If the tools that everything else is built upon are not being maintained, then a lot of infrastructure fails in spectacular ways. If these things are not important, I guess that I've been using the wrong tools and OS.

> They take care of longer term issues, such as enforcing the GPL, defending > it in lawsuits, writing good free software licences, raising awareness about > issues (DRM, vendor lock-in, etc.), increasing free software use around the > world.

They have failed at these things for a long time. The FSF has not had any engaging campaigns in quite a long time (more than 5 years); writing a blog post and an angry letter does not usually get the job done (see HTML5 EME campaign). GPL enforcement from the FSF is a joke since they take forever to respond to anything and by the time they get to it, the device / software is no longer sold / shipped. I also don't see any new striking licenses on the horizon being drafted by the FSF.

<comment><USER30> Make: Ok. I don't personally need many changes in Make. In fact I think it is the kind of tool that should not change too much. GCC: The last release was like 6 days ago: [https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/](https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/)

I would not call that "not being maintained".

Similar thing for GNU tls.

I don't consider that these tools are not important, I'm just saying that the importance is small when compared to what the FSF does. Plenty of other organizations/businesses support and develop free software, few support the legal/licence/philosophy side.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Investing in pre-IPO nanotech firms gets harder - <AUTHOR> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4062

<comment><USER2> After reading the article, I got the opposite impression: if the big players are no longer going after pre-IPO nanotech firms, it should be easier for others to invest in them. Of course, this makes things harder for the pre-IPO nanotech firms, but that's not how the title is written.

</comment><comment><USER3> The number of pre-IPO nanotech firms is very small. The number of pre-IPO nanotech firms which would actually be a good investment is much smaller.</comment>


A video game-playing AI beat Q*bert in a way no one's ever seen before - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/2/28/17062338/ai-agent-atari-q-bert-cracked-bug-cheat <comment><USER2> I'm looking forward to reading the analysis that someone will almost certainly do to reverse engineer the relevant Atari version of Q*bert and figure out the bug.</comment>


Crysis-inspired Menu / Navigation - <AUTHOR> http://alexcheuk.com/hovermenu/

<comment><USER2> The big interaction problem that I always have with circle menu's like this is that when you use it for the first time, without knowing how it works, it's like mystery meat.

You click, drag, release mouse, something happens, too fast to see it, since it auto-selected the link in the edge you dragged to, and opened it in a new window. Now i've completely lost my context and have to do the same thing again after I close the tab, Now i'm on a desktop, but on a tablet this would be even more annoying.

I have this same UI on Snap Camera on my phone (try it, it's still awesome), and i've seldom had such a love-hate relationship with a UI. The rate at which you select something by accident, and unexpected behavior happens is just too high.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like it. Here's what would make it really useful to me: Hold Ctrl, highlight wanted item using arrow keys, release Ctrl, corresponding action is performed. If the menu is large, with a lot of items, allow Ctrl-<key> shortcuts. If I could use this while never touching the mouse, I'd LOVE it.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome. Seems to break all links on the page though. I tried clicking the ribbon in the right hand side of the screen and the menu kept popping up. Maybe triggering a stopPropagation event on page links should be all is needed to fix it.

</comment><comment><USER5> They've been around (documented) since 1969... not just since crysis... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_menu](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_menu)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting..

That's fucking cool! Although it will be hard to put into practical use.

:)

<comment><AUTHOR> yea I know right...

I just wanted to make it for fun

<comment><USER7> For what it's worth, a small bug report: the menu doesn't appear in the right place if you click before having moved the mouse after loading the page (Firefox); it appears in the top left corner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That is freakin sweet!</comment>