Don't Obsess over Tools - <AUTHOR> https://satvikpendem.com/blog/myriad/tools/ <comment><USER2> > _Perhaps it was the lack of sleep or maybe it was an existential crisis, but > I realized that none of this matters. All these computers, these laptops, > these phones, these tools, do the same thing. Sure, some are better than > others, but fundamentally, they're all the same. Did I really waste a week > of my life researching tools?_

Well, if you're a professional, and use/need certain features, then no, fundamentally they're not "all the same".

Also, some of those go for $2K or more, so you better do some research.

But even more so, if you're a programmer, videographer, designer, etc., you'll be using that "computer, laptop" etc, for 1/3rd or your day (or more).

Some differences (e.g. 20% faster speed in compiling or rendering) can save you (or cost you) many more weeks in the 4-5 years you'll be using them than the "1 week" you mention "wasting" researching them.

> _Would I be equally excited if a new version of a hammer, chisel, or anvil > came out?_

All 3 are very simple tools, so no need. But if you were a lathe operator and wanted to buy a new model, you'd better research it...

<comment><AUTHOR> I am a software engineer. I recognize the need for good tools, as computers. In the end of the piece I imply that tool use in and of itself is not bad of course, nor that one shouldn't strive to use better tools. However, one should not strive to research tools as a end in and of itself rather than the means to do real work. Don't spend a literal week of time researching. This is the crux of what I aimed to say.

I spent so much time researching tools that I forgot what I really wanted to do, and in that same amount of time, had I spent it doing the work I wanted to do, I would have finished the project. I talk about true _obsession_ over material things rather than mere _research_ of them. The latter is fine, but the former can have severe psychological consequences.

<comment><USER2> > _Don 't spend a literal week of time researching. This is the crux of what I > aimed to say._

Why not? For one, how is "week of time" defined? Is it "over the course of a week", while also working, taking the kids to school and so on? E.g. a few hours each day perhaps? If so, why not?

> _I spent so much time researching tools that I forgot what I really wanted > to do, and in that same amount of time, had I spent it doing the work I > wanted to do, I would have finished the project._

In the above case, that would make it a weekly project. If you do a week's research to buy a PC (or other tool) for a week-long project, then sure, you have a problem.

If you do a week's research to buy a PC you'll use for 4-6 years, then by all means, do it.

I agree with analysis paralysis, and pixel peeping, and too much obsessing over specs. Just not with the way its phrased, and the examples given, which all seem not very far from the right way to go about things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is my first attempt at writing a blog post and maintaining a blog. I wanted to write with interesting prose that still has clarity. It has two parts, a section for general topics and ideas I've thought about, and another for practical tutorials, mostly about programming and personal discipline.

It's just HTML and CSS for now but I'm interested in using ReasonML, React, and some static site generator in React such as Gatsby and react-static.

Do check out other pieces on the main page for other interesting topics (most yet forthcoming) and let me know what you think: [https://satvikpendem.com](https://satvikpendem.com)

As well, not to plug myself too thoroughly, but the project I was working on mentioned in the article is a todo list + calendar web app for those who'd like to time box their day: [https://getartemis.app](https://getartemis.app)

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't obsess over anything would be good advice but sometimes it's hard not to.

Also, sometimes obsessing is just part of the early phase of learning or doing something new and over the years it wears off.

</comment><comment><USER4> We are drowning in information, which leads us to split hairs on not-so- important decisions.</comment>


CA Snooker Automation System - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WGYXHR-Z-I <comment><AUTHOR> My buddy built this whole system from the ground-up. Just wanted to share on his behalf.</comment>


Giant worry stone [but the other things are cooler, IMO] - <AUTHOR> https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/16/game-theoretical-scotus/#bwd <comment><AUTHOR> "Chris Bathgate: Machinist Sculptor"

[https://www.chrisbathgate.com/](https://www.chrisbathgate.com/)</comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone successful with the 7-minute workout so far? - <AUTHOR> I'm refering to this article:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-minute-workout/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Here are the HN comments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5704485 <comment><USER2> Yes. I've been doing daily exercise for about 8 months, mostly daily 7-min workouts, and I feel nearly as fit as when I saw a trainer for 2 hours/week. Also, this form of exercise has turned into a habit I can't weasel out of.

The rule is: no shower unless I've done some form of exercise. The 7-minute workout counts, so I'm doing one or two 30-minute runs a week, and the rest of the days are 7-min workouts.

Many comments in this thread are failing to address the question of exercise in a rational way. As I see it the relevant questions are:

* What are the incremental benefits of Alternative X (such as "lift weights 3-4 times a week")? Clearly there are benefits, but without a guess as to the magnitude of the benefit, one cannot rationally evaluate it vs the costs.

* Is there a superior alternative to Daily 7-Min that takes about the same time?

* How much better is a daily 7-min than doing nothing?

<comment><USER3> Yes there is a superior alternative that takes about the same time. Buy a 100 lb weight set and add weight to your 7 minute workout.

<comment> k-mcgrady You've just added a barrier now. Most people don't want to buy or store weights. One of the appeals of the 7MW is that it requires no equipment.

<comment><USER3> He wanted something better in 7 minutes.

Also keep in mind that sooner or later you'll get bored with a workout that doesn't even prevent your shape from worsening. 100 lbs of weight takes up a square foot of space. Most people who come to the gym not knowing what to do with themselves gravitate towards a few light weights they could have at home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wrote the top comment in that thread. I want to take a moment to rescind my hard-line attitude as to what constitutes "proper" fitness. The 7-minute workout may be a bit gimmicky and overly minimalist, but it is certainly better than nothing, especially if you do a "set" of 3 "reps" (ie do the workout 3 times) three times a week. You'll probably get some aerobic and anaerobic benefits.

However, just as important, if not more important, is diet. When counting calories, exercise is no substitute for eating less. Whatever diet you end up using (I have my own strong opinions on that but I'll refrain from sharing those here) it is critical for health and well-being to stay within a healthy bodyfat range.

Also, one more thing about that thread. I mentioned leangains and starting strength. Starting strength is excellent for getting strong. Leangains isn't. Leangains is wonderful for getting thinner while retaining your strength. For building muscle, a modest caloric surplus seems to work just as well as, if not better than, intermittent fasting. I'm developing a website that explains more, which will hopefully be launching in the next month or two.

<comment><USER5> How would you recommend to determine how many calories a specific person needs, and how to easily calculate them? I am aware of the countless number of ways for this, but I am not sure how to differentiate between the working ones and those that usually don't.

<comment><USER6> Here's what worked for me:

I tried various BMR/TDEE calculators and they all told me to consume around 2200 cals a day to _maintain_ my current weight. (IMO it honestly doesn't matter which calculator you use - they are all approximate anyway).

To lose weight, I created a mild calorific deficit of 200 cals/day, so basically I eat ~2000 cals a day. I use the myfitnesspal app to track calories. I eat anything I want (yes, including the occasional donut/beer) but I keep the daily total to ~2000.

I logged my weight _every day_ , first thing in the morning. (Note that it is important to log your weight daily as it can fluctuate 1-1.5 lbs each day, so you want to be looking at weekly trend lines, vs say measuring once a week).

At 2000/day my weight trend stayed steady for 2 weeks. So I bumped it down to 1800/day. Now my trend is pointed down, and I'm losing ~1 lb a week.

So that's basically all it takes. Precision and _discipline_ wrt daily calories, with some trial and error to figure out what your individual daily calorific need is. I think a lot of folks make it a lot more complex than it actually is with keto, paleo, insulin levels, etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's successful?

i started the 7 minute thing a few weeks ago. Since then, I've felt fitter and slightly happier. Without it, I'd still cycle to work but my upper body gets very little movement.

So, does doing some exercise make you feel better than doing next to none? In my case, definitely. Does it make you thinner and more attractive? No idea. Is the 7-minute workout the best approach? Probably not. Is it a waste of time? Hell no. Exercise is never a waste of time. And don't ever let any gym geek tell you otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER8> This workout includes a nice mix of full-body exercises that work muscle groups needed for stability and would probably reduce the risk of injury in a lot of athletic activities. However, it's not a minimal complete workout regimen as advertised for these reasons:

1\. If you do this cold, you're going to increase your chance of injury. Warm up first! If you're already fairly active, injuries suck because they keep you from doing the things you love. If you're trying to get active, an injury just shuts you down before you get started!

2\. Some of these exercises can cause injury if your form is poor. If you've done them all many times before and know you have good form then, by all means, warm up and then chain these together for a nice, short HIT workout. If you're not sure you have good form, _slow down_! Do not perform these at a discomfort level of 8 out of 10 if you haven't learned good form yet!

3\. This is a nice workout that you can perform almost anywhere, but incorporates no weights. Unless you're really out of shape (and even if you are) weights are pretty much necessary to get good results.

4\. Having just one workout that you do daily is both _boring_ and incomplete.

Personally, I think this would be a great way to boost energy in the office or warm-up for a sport, but it's not something I would rely on as my complete workout regimen. People who are unfit and are looking for an easy fix should be very cautious of this workout due to it's injury potential. With that in mind, if you can avoid injury it's a lot better than doing nothing!

Disclaimer: I am not a physical trainer or any kind fitness professional.

<comment><USER9> > 1\. If you do this cold, you're going to increase your chance of injury.

I know researchers at (among other places) NTNU in Norway did some research into intense anaerobic training, and found that short workouts could be helpful, especially for those that started from poor shape. But as I recall, they had people do something like 5 minutes at max pulse (~250-300 bpm depending on your condition).

I agree that especially if you're already out of shape, going from 0-100 like that, is likely to set you up for injuries. Perhaps especially if you active training.

I'd like to see this measured against having people do 7 minutes of horse stance[1] (most wouldn't be able to start at 7 minutes).

[1] [http://martialarts.about.com/od/training/ss/horsestance.htm](http://martialarts.about.com/od/training/ss/horsestance.htm)

<comment><USER10> 250-300bpm is an insane heart rate. Maybe a male twenty-three year old track star could pull that, but most of us have a MHR between 150-200.

<comment><USER9> Fair enough. The point was that you need to reach around 90% of MHR for this type of intense exorcise (TBH the last time I read about MHR was in high school, so that the extreme range was given for someone around 23 sounds about right).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes, I do 2 reps, twice daily, six times a week. I also walk 7 miles a day. I've lost 15 pounds in about 3 months.

I also live in Vietnam and my diet, without much work, has improved quite a bit.

I'm not looking for muscle, just to get me back to not feeling like a fat piece of shit and to stop getting winded after sex. Just keeping it real.

</comment><comment><USER12> Your body is fairly important, so I'd suggest spending more than 7 minutes on improving it. If you can't, fix your priorities. Don't try and "hack" your workouts for the purpose of reducing how long they take.

And beyond that, the 7 minute workout is mostly useless. Go to the gym and lift weights 3-4 times a week (and then lift heavier ones the next time, repeat). It's not complicated.

<comment><USER13> Agreed!

I am on the crazy side of the spectrum, currently training 10+ hours a week to do triathlon + powerlifting, but I think a more sane person could get a huge benefit in maybe 5 hours a week. 7 minutes will do something, but I would love to see any 7 minute a day workouter in as good of shape as a 5+ hour workouter.

I do disagree that the ideal workout is go to the gym and lift weights 3-4 times a week. Gym is good, weights is good (I do them), but cardio is also super good. Most studies about exercise makes your memory x% better, or exercise makes you live y% longer are about cardio.

Ways to try and get both?

a) 4 days of 1 hour of crossfit type exercise would work (not my preference) or b) 2 days of weights for about an hour, 2 days of cardio for about an hour, and a decent amount of walking on off days.

<comment><USER14> The point of the 7-min workout isn't to keep you in as good of shape as a 5+ hour workouter, the point is to get 90% of the health benefits in a minimal amount of time as the 5+ hour person. The 7-min workout is designed for the busy professional concerned about their health. If you want to run triathlons, you still are going to need to slog it out doing training workouts.

<comment><USER15> I would be astonished if 7 minutes per day provided even a measurable percentage of the benefits of exercising 5 hours per week (say 3.5 hours lifting and 3 30 minute runs).

Is there any evidence that it can?

<comment><USER14> The nytimes article listed in the parent, which is what sparked the 7-min workout craze, discusses and links to the study. I am not going to get into too much detail, but the general idea is that working a bunch of different muscle groups at high intensity for short periods gets you most of the benefits of longer endurance based workouts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 7 minute is good for sustainability. I'm doing it most days after work and I lost a healthy amount of weight in a month. I also have less back pains due to sitting all day in front of computer.

</comment><comment><USER17> From reading the article it seems like this is intended to be a form of high intensity training (HIT). The idea behind HIT is that intensity is more important for results than duration. There are plenty of studies showing the importance of workout intensity. Probably the most well known (and consequently misused) is the work done by Dr Tabata. His original protocol was very specific but Tabata training has become a shorthand for eight sets of twenty seconds of intense exercise with ten second rests between sets.

People disagree about the tradeoffs between intensity and duration. I'm not an expert on that so my opinion isn't really helpful on that topic. However, I do see some potential problems with the seven minute workout. It's really hard to increase the intensity of several of the exercises. It's really hard to increase the intensity of wall sit, plank and side plank. Once your thighs are parallel to the floor the only way to increase wall sit intensity is to add weight. You can make planks harder by positioning your arms higher up but once again you'll hit a limit pretty fast.

This is probably a decent workout for a beginner but because it doesn't scale well with fitness level I don't see it staying effective. Having said that this is definitely better than nothing and the convenience makes it likely that a beginner will be willing to try it.

</comment><comment><USER18> 7 minutes? I guess _anything_ is better than nothing. However:

Reddit motto #1 - lawyer up and hit the gym.

Reddit motto #2 - Squats, bench, and dead lifts.

I always thought it was a running Reddit joke. However, after going to the gym for years and not seeing wow-type results, I gave #2 a try. After 3 months of it, I have to be honest and say that I'm pretty impressed with the results. I've lost a lot of fat and am far stronger and fitter. But 7 minutes? No. My normal sessions are around 2 hours. A podcast or two, and time flies.

<comment><USER15> > Squats, bench, and dead lifts

Those plus overhead press and some rows (the Stronglifts 5x5 and Madcow 5x5 methods) will increase your strength dramatically in just a few months. Try it once and you'll never look back.

<comment><USER18> Thanks. I'll definately be adding these next session.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I find that I hit a slump around 3:30pm and have been using the 7-minute work out for a mental break from work. I definitely miss some days, but overall I usually do it roughly every other weekday. I know it isn't going to replace my other fitness activities (ultimate frisbee and volleyball), but it's nice way to get my heart rate going and mind off of work without changing/going to the gym (where I am fish out of water).

<comment><USER7> You don't change? But do you shower after? I get very sweaty, don't you? Just curious. I'd like to know more about how you do this at work in practice :) Does wherever you work have a good location for it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> At one time I worked out 2 hours, 3-4 times a week with a majority of that being cardio. I then started having back problems and it hindered how I worked out until I didn't anymore. Over the years I put on weight and I sit all day for work.

I would never get very far with workouts because my back would flare up badly. In an effort to get back in shape and lose some weight I've been doing a 10 minute cardio workout 3-4 times a week.

It's helped tremendously and I've lost over 15 pounds. It's also prevented my back from really flaring up because I'm not over stressing it. I've even worked up to doing an additional 30-40 minute cardio workout once a week.

I'll never have the cardio I had years ago but I'm in much better shape than when I was doing nothing. It's also motivated me to start wearing my fitbit again and getting up and walking through my work campus once a day.

Yes it can help. What the naysayers don't realize is that many people are out of shape, have medical issues, etc. They also don't realize that even getting into a short rhythm of working out snowballs into other self-conscious health thoughts and activities.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm with bretthopper. The 7 minute workout is a good start for us developers who probably get little to no exercise. That said, I don't think it's designed to actively make you lose weight, bulk up, or increase your cardiovascular fitness.

If you're looking for those things, get your heart pumping for longer than 15 minutes and work on a solid routine at a gym.

<comment><USER22> Forget the gym. If you have the time, do p90x. I swear, if you do that, you'll be in the best shape of your life. The biggest problem is maintaining once your done. I can't seem to keep the routine indefinitely.

I stopped about 5 months ago and haven't done much besides surf a couple times a month and I'm still in pretty good shape. I'll start again in March to get ripped for the summer.

I probably should have been doing these 7 minute workouts to maintain...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I tried it out for about two months and saw no real benefits. Nothing changed physically.

I just bit the bullet and joined a gym. It's not that I'm lazy - I just get incredibly bored at the gym doing those reps. But I am doing 1 hour a day 6 days a week of hard workout with equipment.

Do yourself a favor and bite the same bullet: Join a gym and pump some iron.

</comment><comment><USER24> You might take a look at HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). I started doing it two months ago and I think it is well worth the effort. Although it takes half an hour but it has a long lasting metabolic speedup effect and a little euphoric feeling which keeps you doing it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- intensity_interval_trainin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- intensity_interval_training)

I usually do 3 workouts a week. It consists of a 5 minute warmup followed by eight 1 minute sprints with 2 minute walk intervals and an 5 minute cooldown at the end: 5+(8*3)+5: 34 minutes total. As others have said there is no point in "hacking" your workouts. You can do away with optimizations like HIIT, but imho you still need around 1 hour of exercise every day to keep yourself healthy.

</comment><comment><USER25> I fell off the wagon after tearing my calf doing the 7 minute workout, don't ask, but ramp up a little and take it easy.

My GF on the other hand used the 7 minute workout as her only exercise during our extended trip and gained strength and mobility. It definitely works.

</comment><comment><USER26> That sounds undesirable. I go 6 days/wk for 30-45min. I love the benefits of working out, but it's more of a mental break for me. I listen to Mixergy, learn a thing or two, and reset myself. I spend 12+ hours a day at the computer. The least I could do is workout for 30min.

The 7-minute workout is better than nothing, but I wouldn't look at it as a go-to strategy.

I guess it really depends on your perspective. I've always worked out, so I enjoy it. But for some it's an inconvenience. It just like food between my wife and I. She likes food variety and it's an experience for her. I just eat so I don't die and can (and do) eat the same thing every day.

</comment><comment><USER27> 7 minutes is better than nothing, but you really need 30 minutes minimum to get your metabolism up to the point where it stays elevated throughout the day. Less than that, and you don't get the lasting, day long benefits of a workout.

The concept of "you don't need a gym membership or weights to get results" is very sound. My girlfriend is essentially a full-time acrobat (extremely fit, trains for 25+ hours a week), and she started me on a simple workout that takes 30-60 minutes, and goes in five week cycles of building up in reps. It's produce more results in a shorter period of time than any traditional gym workout.

</comment><comment><USER28> British Journalist Andrew Marr suffered a stroke following a high intensity training session. He's doing the chat show circuit claiming rowing machines and HIIT are responsible for his stroke. The NHS website have quite a sensible take on it:

[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/04April/Pages/Is-exercise-to- bla...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/04April/Pages/Is-exercise-to-blame-for- Andrew-Marrs-stroke.aspx)

Basically if you're going to do high intensity efforts, best get checked out with your doctor first, particularly if you're a bit stressed.

</comment><comment> dorian-graph I started with it using one of the many available apps and did it every day for about 2 months. I stopped when I bought a small set of dumbbells and started moving to ~ 30 minute workout sessions.

It was a good starting point. I've always been fit (soccer player & runner) but never did much weights so I found it a good motivator to do more than just run as my workout.

</comment><comment><USER29> Try adding kettlebell to it. Unlike dumbbells, working with kettlebell is very dynamic and works on the whole body. It took a while for me to find a good kettlebell routine on youtube, but it was well worth it. I do it for 15 min a day instead of 7.

<comment><USER30> Care to share the link? I'm curious about kettlebell.

<comment><USER29> This is the only decent routine I was able to find:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JG7yzkGOYE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JG7yzkGOYE)

Short and sweet. Rest of videos is just a bunch of torsos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> it's decent as an absolute minimum, but what you should really do is buy a barbell, 10-20kg in weights, and do SQUATS.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure what you're doing with 20kg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've been doing it most days for the last six weeks, and I love it.

</comment><comment><USER34> What were the success metrics?

</comment><comment><USER35> 7 minute workout is good AFTER my workout. adds to the burn and gives some direction.

you need to workout and lift weights if you want to get muscles</comment>


Ask HN: How do you outsource design and development? - <AUTHOR>

Ideally, I would have someone in my immediate circle of friends who could create this project. Since I don't, I want to make the process of outsourcing development and design as seamless as possible. Does anyone on HN have experience hiring out, and ensuring that the vision is executed upon? <comment><USER2> You're the architect so you'd be the glue between the design team and implementation team. Ideally they are not the same people.

For a programmer I'd start by farming out the project in pieces to a few different people to find the right person. For designers I'd start looking at sortfolio.com or CSS portfolio sites where you'll typically find designers demonstrating their skills. Expect to be emailing quite a bit. It's not an easy process but assembling the right team is half the battle - directing and architecting the product to release is the other half.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In a comment that will probably be laughed at, I'll just ask this: what kind of a site can I expect with a $500-$1000 price range? Surely something can be built for that much money.

<comment><USER3> No need to laugh. But you should _seriously_ adjust your expectations.

For a US firm, $1k will get you a website with around a dozen pages. Probably from a template. Maybe with a contact form or email signup.

If you outsource, $1k will get you the above with maybe a single database interaction. E.g., you could probably expect to make a to-do list, with user login and password updating. Maybe it would even email out the tasks when they're due. But not much more than that.

Figure it this way -- a kick ass US programmer will charge about $1k for a day's work. You can't get much built in a day.

And for outsourcing, I can only speak to my experience, but they tend to take 4-5x longer (per hour basis) than I do. So the hourly is much cheaper, but the quality and efficiency are much worse (note: that's an obvious generalization... but the parent comment is exactly the type that will tend to get screwed on outsourcing due to lack of domain expertise.)

<comment><USER4> $1k for a day's work? Really?

Wow. Some people on this website considered it weird when i said that $15/hour is a low rate when you ask for freelancers who can code more than your run-of- the-mill php page.

I am not talking about US vs non-US, that makes no difference to me. I expect to pay a premium for service from knowledgeable people regardless of their nationality. Why don't people do the same when it comes to software?

Or am i completely off base here?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Design: I would look at sortfolio and contact them directly Development: I would look at design shops with development (one company is better) again, they can be found on sortfolio.

If you are looking intl, then you have odesk, elance, guru and rentacoder.

You definitely should make sure that it is scoped out, with business rules, wireframes, use cases, etc. All of these will help the contractors come up with a realistic price and timeframe.

</comment><comment><USER6> I haven't done it myself, but for your price range you'll likely end up on rentacoder. An article posted here a while back had some good tips on managing a project there:

[http://maxkle.in/the-subtleties-in-outsourcing-using- rentaco...](http://maxkle.in/the-subtleties-in-outsourcing-using-rentacode/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, definitely. Your best bet is to make your spec documents as detailed as possible, to the letter. Then, only hire someone whose references you've checked; ask them how reliable are they (do they randomly disappear?) and ask them how close they stuck to their initial estimate. I like looking on Craigslist when I prefer to deal with an American and Rentacoder when I'm willing to go international.</comment>


Announcing F# 4.5 - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2018/08/14/announcing-f-4-5/ <comment><USER2> Check out F# today to see what will be added to C# in two years! :-)</comment>


Google is paying Apple billions per year to remain on the iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html <comment><USER2> So, in other words, $25B worth of attention is transferred from iOS users to Google[1], which Google pays Apple $3B for this access.

[1] [https://www.recode.net/2017/7/24/16020330/google-digital- mob...](https://www.recode.net/2017/7/24/16020330/google-digital-mobile-ad- revenue-world-leader-facebook-growth)

<comment><USER3> What's the exchange rate between units of attention and dollars these days?

<comment><USER4> to Google: about 8 to 1...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >On the other hand, Sacconaghi said that Apple's iOS devices contribute about 50 percent to Google's mobile search revenue, which means Google might be too afraid to walk away from its licensing deal with Apple.

50%? Am I reading this right, that iOS makes up 50% of Google's mobile search revenue? IDC reports that Android made up 85% of the mobile OS market share in Q1-17, while iOS makes up 14.6%. How could iOS be contributing half of the mobile search revenue when Google's own OS is on most of the mobile devices in the world?

[0][https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market- share/os](https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os)

<comment><USER6> This observation is the single most important thing you need to know if you work in consumer mobile.

To first order, iPhone owners spend money. Android owners don't. This is because your average iPhone user cares more about what phone they're using and simply _uses_ it more.

This _is_ a first-order approximation. The small percentage of people who actively _choose_ Android do spend and do use their phones a lot, and by goodness are they vocal, but the more useful way of thinking about the market is not two-segment, it's three-segment:

* Vast majority: don't care about their phone OS, won't pay for anything

* Significant minority: want iPhones, will most probably spend money

* Significant but even smaller minority: actively want Android, will buy premium Android phones (e.g. Nexus, high-end Samsung), will either spend money or, with roughly equal likelihood, jailbreak and pirate everything in sight.

From this perspective iOS remains the most compelling mobile OS to target. Additionally, iOS users – on average - use apps more and for longer, though again that effect is small when you control for the kind of Android devices people go out of their way to choose.

<comment><USER7> > From this perspective iOS remains the most compelling mobile OS to target.

That fine if you're trying to make money, but it still annoys me when something like a government or non-profit targets iPhone first.

<comment><USER6> Absolutely, yes. Your moral argument there is pretty undeniable; I'm speaking purely to propensity-to-spend and that's a pretty narrow lens.

In fact, I'd say "target the web" if you're going for maximum accessibility and you're not driven by commercial factors, though that doesn't work for every app and the usability/discoverability issues can be real. Favoring any commercial platform as a government is a very uncomfortable place to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "Court documents indicate that Google paid Apple $1B in 2014, and we > estimate that total Google payments to Apple in FY 17 may approach $3B," > Bernstein analyst A.M. Sacconaghi Jr. said. "Given that Google payments are > nearly all profit for Apple, Google alone may account for 5% of Apple's > total operating profits this year, and may account for 25% of total company > OP growth over the last two years."

It's crazy considering even if Apple switched default search engines I'm sure a lot of users would switch back to Google.

<comment><USER9> Several months after Apple Maps became the default, something like 2/3rds of all users switched away from Google Maps. It's hard for me to believe, since the Apple Maps are more attractive but still less useful, but those are the numbers. I wouldn't count on a big return to Google Search.

<comment><USER10> Most people can't tell the difference and go with the default. Even the people who have it installed are often redirected to Apple Maps by Siri and location links since they will always use it.

<comment><USER11> I prefer usability (UX) over content, I used to switch to other maps when I had issues with data, but there hasn't been the need to in a very long time. Default is great especially if the UX is better. Google is ok, but Apple Maps UI is the best. I still use Waze from time to time though.

<comment><USER12> I find Apple Maps annoyingly slow in calculating routes and responding to my input. Google Maps worked alright for me, but I switched to Waze a couple months ago and can't go back anymore.

Waze is superior in so many ways. It knows (most) contruction sites/road closures (there are many where I live), Waze tells me about speed traps and accidents. Maybe not the best UI, but I definitely get the best results. And I enjoy submitting Road closures etc myself - hoping that I am helping others get where they want faster/without unexpected issues. It's not perfect, but it has definitely saved me a lot of time.

<comment><USER13> IMO, Waze is hit or miss, but fun. If you're doing a multi-car road trip the little messaging/beep features and stuff are fun. It overweights traffic and underweights stop signs and lights. It's great for inter-city travel, especially if you're a little familiar with the road.

But it's subject to flights of fancy similar to MapQuest circa 2002 where you find yourself taking some strange back road to save little or no travel time.

<comment><USER14> It does not give traffic enough weight for my commute. Waze is consistently too optimistic in travel time by 10-15 minutes (25% of my commute if I hit rush-hour).

With no traffic, it's spot on. I feel like it doesn't account for traffic that develops during the commute. Given the length of my travel, the roads may be clear when I start, but very congested before I finish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's in Google's best interest to keep the price high... it raises the price for any potential competitor who might try to outbid them.

Google knows how much money it makes through iPhone... a potential competitor could only guess how much money could be made by being the new default search engine (especially since the number of people who would be loyal to Google and switch away from the new default is a big unknown).

It's interesting to see exactly how valuable it is (or how valuable people think it is) to be the market leader.

If Google lost the iPhone default position, their customers (i.e. advertisers) would see them differently.

<comment><USER16> It's also a disincentive for Apple to make their own search engine.

<comment><USER17> This really doesn't seem like something Apple would do. It's not in their DNA, would be very tough to do while keeping their pro-privacy stance, and isn't how they like to make money. I'd be very disappointed if they went down this road.

<comment><USER16> I doubt that creating a new competitive search engine is quite as hard as Google would like us to believe. Whether it's something Apple would do, I don't have an opinion; in general I don't pay much attention to Apple.

They could conceivably setup a search engine as a pro-privacy move by deliberately not collecting/monetizing user's search data, and perhaps not even running ads at all if they can figure out some other way to pay for it or justify the expense. However, I agree with you that it feels wrong. I think I'd feel better about a new search engine if it was run by a less profit- driven institution, like the Internet Archive.

Maybe the best course of action if Apple wanted a Google alternative to exist is to develop some of the technology in-house and then give a giant grant to some well-respected pro-privacy organization to actually run the thing.

<comment><USER18> > I doubt that creating a new competitive search engine is quite as hard as > Google would like us to believe.

MS, Yahoo and many others would disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Apple is developing its search engine. If you use iOS search you might notice there are results that are not either Bing or maps results. Map on its own eats lots of Google's search share because people search on their iPhones for locations and businesses a lot.

</comment><comment><USER20> With iOS 11 you can type your Questions to Siri for results, replacing some of your Searches. I remember vaguely that 80% of all searches are some specific type that Apple could replicate in Siri "Should they choose to".

I think the End Game will be Apple providing very good, high quality curated Search Results for its Users, Eating up to 40% of Google's Mobile revenue. ( 80% of searches and 50% of Mobile Revenue coming from iPhone ).

That is, of course assuming Apple could do Searches or Services, judging from the few years of Apple Map, Apple Music, iCloud etc. This segment is simply not in their DNA.

Notes: Some may argue Apple's Services Revenue continues to increase, but if you look at the break down majority of it are from App Store, and majority of App Store Revenue are from Gaming, which ironically is a category Apple doesn't care much.

</comment><comment><USER21> Pretty baffling that a few lines of code for a default setting could be worth the GDP of a country...

<comment><USER22> You're referring to cost, not value. The price charged here is for the value of the effect, not for the cost of changing the few lines of code.

<comment><USER23> Yes, this is an excellent example which further debunks the labor theory of value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Given Apple's recent public push on privacy, I keep expecting DDG to become the new 'default' search engine in Safari.

<comment><USER25> I think they'd be interested if the results were half as good as Googles. As an experiment the last 6 months or so I've been using DDG at work and Google at home. The difference in quality is very noticeable—Google still is the best search engine.

<comment><USER26> Do you use the bang system in DDG? I think that more than makes up the difference.

<comment><USER27> If you have to remember to use arbitrary bangs to get specific results then DDG has already failed as a search engine. Coding a query yourself is obviously the most powerful way to search documents, but the key to useful software is to do the hard work for you.

<comment><USER24> Bangs dont 'get specific results' \- they're shortcuts to let you do site- specific 'searches', _on_ that site.

So, if I want to check the versions of haproxy in the various Debian suites, then `!dpkg haproxy` would take me to [https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=haproxy](https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=haproxy).

If I just want general results about HAproxy, that isn't what a bang is for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "Sacconaghi said that Google might decide to back away from paying Apple any licensing fees if it feels confident enough that its search engine is so popular Apple won't include any other option by default."

Wasn't there a period just a few years ago when Apple switched to Bing platform wide? Or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER29> Siri currently defaults to Bing search, and that is not a setting that can be changed.

If you want google you have to explicitly tell Siri to search using Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Well, I'm dealing with a bootloop-ed Nexus 5X, with no help from Google nor its manufacturer, LG.

My previous Android phone, a 2013 Moto X bought while Google owned the cell phone part of Motorola and was promising users (finally) timely, consistent updates, was largely abandoned with respect to updates within a year. This also involved Verizon, for me, who was promising... finally, timely and continuing updates, for this now Google phone -- no, really, believe us, despite our history.

So... I guess Google better be paying _someone_ to maintain their presence in mobile.

Maybe they should have paid _me_ and all their other Android users a little better attention. Because I'm seriously considering an iPhone as a replacement for my 5X brick.

<comment><USER31> I saw an article with a proposed fix for this the other day. I have no idea how correct it is, but it's probably worth trying if your phone is already a brick. [https://www.xda-developers.com/nexus-5x-bootloop-fix-boot- ph...](https://www.xda-developers.com/nexus-5x-bootloop-fix-boot-phone/)

<comment><USER30> Thank you. I started briefly looking into possible remedies, but I haven't gotten too far, yet. Lots of "maybes", it seems; and the likely need to pursue them in the "right" order so as not to have one rule out another.

All from third parties. I haven't seen any useful, official response, yet -- except for some warranty replacements supposedly for units still under warranty. (But then, bye-bye data...)

I'll have a look at your link, now. Appreciate it!

P.S. "Heat"... I've rather pampered my 5X, but I did -- with all the intention of taking it in with me to the restaurant -- leave it in my car's dashboard compartment for an half hour to an hour, where I had atypically placed it while driving because the passenger seat was full of stuff. That compartment's door closed itself while driving due to shaking and gravity, and I forgot.

It was cloudy when I went in, but sunnier when I came out, and the phone had gotten pretty warm while still running. Not melty warm, and it was idling during that time. My friends treat their phones far worse.

It seemed to be fine, when I came out. But now that I think about it, a few days later, I experienced the bootloop.

Then again, the phone had spontaneously restarted 2 or 3 times in the past few months, while I was using it. On those occasions, though, it promptly and successfully rebooted.

The phone's only about 1.3 years old. I've heard some people have had success claiming a replacement, even out of the official warranty. Seems to be a matter of chance or/and reaching the right person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I thought the number one search term for all search engines is "google"..

<comment><USER33> Reminds me of a time I watched an admin assistant at my work perform a search.

1\. Open IE 6 (although this was only a few years ago, my org was slow to upgrade).

2\. Use some weird in browser search tool and enters "Google"

3\. This brings up a Bing search results for "Google"

4\. Clicks on the first result, which is for the homepage of Google.com

5\. Enters original search term in Google.com

It's amazing what you can see when you watch users work.

<comment><USER34> My mother called me crying once, because some software she installed changed her homepage from google. She was crying because "Google was gone" and she couldn't "search for www dot bankofamerica dot com"

<comment><USER33> I've co-founded a startup and we are blown away with what users come up with. You think you've captured every corner case... but then someone new comes along.

For example, we have a small CTA with email and location. I'm not sure one person has entered both fields correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Mmm... I doubt they would set Bing or Yahoo as the default search engine and alienate all their users.

Every time I use those SE, I realize how good Google is.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder how much Yahoo pays oracle to put their goddamn awful malware on chrome whenever i update java.

</comment><comment><USER37> When advertising companies start paying large sums of money to product companies, you know that there is something wrong with the economy...

Money should flow from product companies to advertising companies; there is something sinister about money moving in the opposite direction.

<comment> Method-X Are there other examples of this happening, or is it just an isolated thing with Google?

<comment><USER37> At one point, a lot of mobile game companies (which make money from advertising) bought up advertising space to advertise themselves - This is not as bad though because money flows from advertising to advertising but it's still weird.

<comment> Method-X Not necessarily; it's just arbitrage. If they can get cheap advertising and it converts well, then selling more expensive ads would make sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It has to look tempting to Apple to get into the search engine business. They already have Siri, which is similar to the front end of a search engine.

</comment><comment><USER39> Would MSFT or Yahoo really pay more though?

<comment><USER40> If Google stopped paying, Apple could ask users during setup which search engine they want to use, instead of using Google by default.

Right now you can choose in the settings app between Google, Bing, Yahoo and Duck Duck Go, but only a small percentage of people change the setting.

If the setting was more prominent, and Google wasn't the preselected first option, Google would lose a lot of market share on iOS.

<comment><USER41> I really doubt that this is true. Google didn't just accidentally become the search engine of choice for the internet. People chose to use it.

<comment><USER42> End users just don't always notice or care. Most search engines are reasonably good at returning results for basic queries. As long is it's "good enough" most people don't even notice they have a choice and make the switch. Sure, you and I do, but as another poster said the HN demographic isn't the norm here.

<comment><USER43> Not true in Mobile. Bing is not very good in comparison to Google. Then with MS down to 6.5% share in the US for all devices it will just get worse.

[http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market- share/all/uni...](http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market- share/all/united-states-of-america)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Siri definitely shows bing results. I'm not sure Microsoft is paying for that

</comment><comment><USER45> Does Apple realistically have any other options? If not, why is Google paying them?

<comment><USER46> serious question: what if Apple bought (something like) DuckDuckGo and invested in it? could that form a good enough replacement?

<comment><USER45> DuckDuckGo is just Bing with a filter. It's not a search engine in and of itself, so there's nothing much there for Apple to buy.

<comment><USER47> Are you sure of that? I get considerably different results for queries on Bing vs DDG.

<comment><USER48> I've just done a search for "fuengirola" which is a popular tourist destination for people from the UK. Both on bing and duckduckgo. I have the exact same results from both searches.

[http://imgur.com/P1akOab](http://imgur.com/P1akOab)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> most users would switch it to google if apple switched it to bing or something else meaning Google is paying them for just the ease of not having the risk of not being default.

<comment><USER50> I don't think most users would switch. Don't forget how many users Internet Explorer has since it comes preinstalled. And that's after a monopoly suit to make it easier to choose a competitor.

Most people are not techies and are lazy. Sure maybe their kids will switch it or their friend will tell them to do so, but MANY devices will stick with the default.

<comment><USER49> my mom doesn't know how to use a computer, turn it on, navigate a GUI, but she knows what the google logo looks like and if presented with something else she'd chime in to have me or a coworker switch it for sure. So i disagree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> What else is Apple going to use Bing?</comment>


Ask HN: Best platform for writing tech blogs? - <AUTHOR> Name your favorite blogging platform for writing a tech (coding, engineering) blog and briefly explain why.<p>A must have feature is syntax highlighting for code snippets. <comment><USER2> nanoc, i can just hack whatever i need in my favorite language based on a platform that already offers all the basics.</comment>


Ask HN: UI for deep learning training? - <AUTHOR> Hello,
I'm trying to make an UI for my deep learning library, something similar to TensorBoard.
I'm wondering if you find TensorBoard like UI useful? Or it's just optional?
How should this UI look like? Other than cost/loss, what else will be helpful to tweak training parameters?
Is visualizing convolution feature maps useful?
How about RNN models? what to visualize?
Thanks, <comment><USER2> When I try different parameter values, I typically plot accuracy/epochs for each value. Visualizing filters/maps can be useful. I also plot histograms of the weights/inputs/activations per layer. Now that I think about it, a slider which would allow me to change a specific weight/bias and immediately see the effect on the accuracy would be cool.</comment>


Peter Diamandis on how Silicon Valley can make 100 the new 60 - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-diamandis-how-silicon-valley-can-make-100-new-60-2018-2 <comment><USER2> Silicon Valley: You're over 30, we don't hire old people here, they can't keep up.

Also Silicon Valley: You're going to have to work until you're 140 and die on the job.

</comment><comment><USER3> Greeeaaat. Now I can look forward to working until I'm 110! At least that gives me more time to save for retirement...

<comment><AUTHOR> What about paying off your student loans..... :)</comment></comment>


Web Coupons Tell Stores More Than You Realize - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/media/17coupon.html?hp <comment><USER2> Retailers love web coupons because it helps them close the loop on their marketing and measure ROI from their site.

Not sure about the company the article mentioned, RevTrax, though. Their product sounds interesting but they blatantly stole Werck/Checkout's logo for use on their site.

<http://www.revtrax.com/platform.php> v. <http://www.checkoutapp.com>

<comment><USER3> > Their product sounds interesting but they blatantly stole Werck/Checkout's > logo for use on their site.

Are you sure Werck owns that logo? It may be a stock icon.

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure :) Their footer says "Checkout and the Checkout logo are trademarks of Werck BV". Also if you look at a large version of it the front window says "Checkout".

That's what makes it so stupid - there's so many stock icons for a "store", why steal one?

<comment><USER4> It's possible that someone else stole it and uploaded to a stock photo site trying to pass it off as their own work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's another level that's ignored here. Some retailers go as far as sending you unique coupons that only you can use and which may or may not be tied to an expiration date/product EAN. It's just another level of targeted marketing that shows favoritism to repeat customers.

If you bought the 1st harry potter book the retailer may send you a unique coupon with a special promotion on the other items in the series if you buy more than 1. Doing it through search urls is just another avenue.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've been using this buy-one-get-one-free Jamba Juice coupon this week, but I don't see any information embedded in it. However, if you use the "Tell a friend" widget in the top right, you get routed through SocialTwist, which is presumably doing some sort of analytics.

<http://www.jambajuice.com/20thcoupon/index.html></comment>


The Problem With Python - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/The_Problem_With_Python

<comment><USER2> This is utter crap. If you're going to compare sites for two languages, don't compare a plugin's site to a programming language's site. It obviously should have been <http://java.sun.com> vs. <http://www.python.org> .

</comment><comment><USER3> I think I would pick the one whose website says, "USED BY NASA" as opposed to the language site that has a picture of a dude trying to figure out why he has a laptop in his hands.

</comment><comment><USER4> Utterly ridiculous. Which young hacker in the history of the _world_ ever picked a programming language based on how "hip," "cool" or "fun" a marketing site said it was? Who the hell ever thought flashier site = better language? I mean... I am speechless. This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Like, I try to flag it _more_ , but it just unflags it.

<comment><USER5> The people who think Rails is a programming language, perhaps.

Anything driven by buzz more than substance.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Python for me. I supposed I am contrary to what the author means, but the python site shows activity and community of a growing language. The java site shows basically nothing but flashiness in comparison. If I was to choose a language based on its website, I would go with the clean, well-organized one.

<comment><USER5> The Python site looks like its designer placed a higher priority on being organized and informative than being flashy; the overall design says, "This is why Python is a good language, and here's how you can try it out." (The same applies to <http://haskell.org>, I think.)

The Java site makes it sound like something people would try to sell on TV late at night. ("Operators are standing by!") How many stock images of people with laptops can you put on one page?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Uh huh. This must be the same reason MIT struggles so _mightily_ to get decent applicants:

<http://mit.edu/>

<http://www.phoenix.edu/>

</comment><comment><USER7> They should have used python.com for Python.</comment>


Google introduces its own browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/01/no-joke-google-introduces-its-own-browser-with-a-cartoon/

<comment><USER2> Very cool stuff in a big and technically demanding project. 1) Sites, tabs, and plugins as OS level processes. 2) Automated testing based on pagerank 3) WebKit 4) Advanced JS VM 5) Properly detachable tabs 6) Complex sandboxing 7) Google tools and services integrated

<comment><USER3> Absolutely.

You know, I've been meaning to write a blog post about the gripes I've got with Google. Poor design skills, f'rinstance. But I've found that I can't honestly depict that stuff, not well. This project reminded me why: it's because despite shortcomings, Google still has a talented, ambitious core of people with a good mind for what would be GOOD for the Internet. I have high hopes for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And we'll likely never have an ad blocker for this browser... heh

<comment><USER5> Lies. There's a plugin API, and it's open source.

<comment><USER2> We've yet to see what kind of interfaces if any there are for customizing the browser. The plugins that the comics discuss are like the Adobe Flash plugin and not like the flashblock Firefox extension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great news. makes me curious about Google chrome on Android phone!

</comment><comment><USER7> i cant find anything about this danish team and their v8 jsvm. are my google skills epic fail?

<comment><USER8> Second try on Google, found an article. <http://mbilf.com/2008/09/on-google- chrome/>

The team was Lars Bak and Kasper Lund, both apparently employees of Google. It was probably a separate team Google set up, good way to keep a start-up style approach to projects.</comment></comment>


Google has best engineering,Amazon is mediocre - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/danluu/status/1261216746687483904 <comment><USER2> I know a bunch of engineers who have worked at the giants. IMO they've all lost their luster. They grew too big. You can only fight regression to the mean for so long. Law of large numbers or whatever.

The best teams I worked with were small. When you only have 7 engineers its easy to make sure they're brilliant. You get to 100 and its nearly impossible. X hires his buddy Y because they're friends. One of them gets to management. Suddenly you have a whole team of mediocre engineers. Nobody wants to fire a whole team just because they're not superstars. Soon everything regresses to the mean. IMO, every big company has average engineers.

People hire others like themselves, but you get enough people and the personalities (and skill) blur into the whole spectrum

They pay a lot so you won't leave, spill their secrets and compete with their monopolies. Not because they're hot shit</comment>


Windows Start Button designer is now hacking voter turnout - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/moveon-victory-lab-voter-mobilization-obama-progressives

<comment><USER2> I think everyone should read Cialdini's work defensively. I'm not sure how I feel about _applying_ it to influence other people. It basically boils down to hacking at someone's identity to get them to do with you want, and I'm just not sure how the ethical calculus works out on that.

<comment><USER3> > hacking at someone's identity to get them to do with you want

Hrm, but how is this different from every marketing strategy ever created?

<comment><USER4> I'm not so sure the ethical calculus works out on those either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of course, anything that looks like campaign/vote mail in my box is thrown into the recycle bin before looking at it at all. I think many ppl are sick of all the calls and mail, and won't even look at this missive.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not reading - instantly got a modal sign up thrown in my face...</comment>


7 Unikernel Projects to Take on Docker in 2015 - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/cloud-computing/819993-7-unikernel-projects-to-take-on-docker-in-2015

<comment><USER2> Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the Unikernel vs Docker natrative but it feels inevitable given how the Docker crowd claimed the 'death of the hypervisor' in their early days. These two tools could probably play quite nicely together.

With that mini-rant out of the way, the really interesting thing will be examining the differences between Unikernel approaches. So far, there hasn't been scope to do that as it's been more about rasing awareness of the space in general.</comment>


Dan Weinreb passed away - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2012/09/07/dan-weinreb-boston-computer-geek-community-figure-dies-of-cancer/ <comment><USER2> A couple years ago, I passed a very pleasurable hour in front of the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles when the man behind me in line noticed the database book I was reading, and struck up a conversation. Glad I had the luck to rub elbows with one of the Lisp old school. RIP.

</comment><comment><USER3> Dan Weinreb was the MIT guy in 'Worse is Better':

[http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/m...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/msg01821.html)

<http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html>

<comment><USER4> Interesting, didn't know that. I used to hack on the Symbolics and recall using Statice a neat OO db he did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> He was a HN user too:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dlweinreb>

Will the black bar come out?

</comment><comment><USER6> Dan was awesome. A few years ago, when I was an undergrad trying to raise money for my first startup in Boston, he was a huge help. Took the time to grab a couple meals with me and explain how things worked, introduced me to angels, and was really insightful. He had no expectation of anything in return - just gave freely of his time and experience.

I wish I had kept in better touch with him. He will be missed.

</comment><comment><USER7> About a year and a half ago I commented on a blog post he has made (it was a rather minor point in regards to consistency in distributed databases, I think). Dan replied to me via email with a follow up question and we had some correspondence about distributed systems, databases, and (naturally) Lisp. He ended up helping me edit a rough draft of a blog post, which ended up being very well received.

Several things struck me. First, expertise went across many disciplines of CS (from programming languages, to hardware, to databases) and beyond. He could have easily had fame as "Lisp guy", or "object oriented databases guy", or "CPU design guy" but he went above and beyond.

Finally, despite his repute, not only was he approachable (as evidenced by many stories here of folks carrying on correspondence with Dan), but he was curious and interested in learning from others, e.g., he noticed I listed OCaml on my LinkedIn profile and asked a question related to an article Erik Meijer's wrote about Linq and F#.

He will be sorely missed.

</comment><comment><USER8> The wikipedia edit doesn't cite any sources, but I've heard it from his coworkers at ITA and from <https://twitter.com/CommonAngels/status/244137900336361472>

Very sad to hear it. I really enjoyed hearing Dan's stories from his early days at MIT and his renewed interest in Common Lisp in the past few years was great.

He had a great Google Tech Talk on YouTube/Google Video a few years ago about ITA, but sadly it was taken down for some reason.

<comment><USER9> Here's a link to a note Dan wrote about the video being marked "private", as well as a link to some notes about the talk.

[http://lists.common- lisp.net/pipermail/pro/2011-April/000464...](http://lists.common- lisp.net/pipermail/pro/2011-April/000464.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> More here: [http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2012/09/07/dan-weinreb- boston-...](http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2012/09/07/dan-weinreb-boston- computer-geek-community-figure-dies-of-cancer/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I met Dan at a coffee meetup in Cambridge several years back. He was considerate, erudite and unfailingly interesting and excitable.

I wish I gotten to spend more time with him.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd _love_ to see his google tech talk. Perhaps, in memory of Dan, google can go through the video and redact any portions they feel are not suitable for public release. Then, repost it to YT.

Is anybody aware of a link to the video that works. After searching for a bit, it seems that every page I visited points the video back to YT. Surely, somebody made a copy of it somewhere???

RIP Dan.

<comment><USER13> Sounds like an idea for a petition

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A shock, to me, as I had no idea he had cancer. And very sad indeed. I didn't know him well, but I was a Zmacs user from the early days. (I still miss Zmacs in some ways.)

Dan was a great hacker.

</comment><comment><USER15> Dan was a super guy and a good friend. Incredibly smart, incredibly experienced, well respected and wonderfully nice to be around.

It's incredibly sad and a big loss for the technology world, but let's not forget to direct our thoughts to his wife and son that he leaves behind.

</comment><comment><USER16> I met him a couple of times at Boston Lisp meetings.

Awesome guy. Very low key. Consider me officially bummed.

</comment><comment><USER17> Why do so many great people pass away so young, and evil people like Dick Cheney live till old age even though they have 100 heart attacks?

<comment><USER18> Dick Cheney has phylacteries (Horcruxes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I didn't know him and never heard of him but it sounds like world is a bit worse off without him. Too young. RIP fellow Geek.

</comment><comment><USER20> fuck cancer

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm very interested if we'll hear anything from rms' side about this.

</comment><comment><USER22> That really sucks :( RIP man.

</comment><comment><USER23> I met him @ International Lisp Conference in 2009 and within 10-15 odd minutes of our chat, he taught me so much about airline reservation system (& common lisp) that it will be safe to say that Industry has lost a gem of a person and top notch computer scientist. RIP Sir, you will be missed.

</comment><comment><USER24> That is sad to hear!

For what it's worth, I had a question I keep on thinking to ask him, but for whatever reason never got around to it. One should settle such questions. Would have loved the memory of his answer.

<comment><USER12> Would you like to share the question with HN?</comment></comment>


Google as Fat Elvis - <AUTHOR> http://takimag.com/article/google_as_fat_elvis/print

<comment><USER2> An aggressive article -- it starts off quite reasonably and becomes strident towards the end.

Nevertheless it's a thought-provoking article that ought to be upvoted more.</comment>


HTML + CSS3 is Turing complete - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/elitheeli/oddities/blob/master/rule110-grid.html <comment><USER2> Way to steal my karma.... :)

As the original author of this, I was going to put it into a much more presentable state before showing it off here.

For those confused, here's a proper explanation. No real-world thing can actually be Turing complete (able to express basically any computation that we might want to perform of any size). That's because there are finitely many atoms in the universe, so we can only construct machines of finite size.

It's well known that Rule 110 (Google it) is Turing Compete.

What I've done is made an implementation of Rule 110 in HTML and CSS. Since CSS can't actually really manipulate state, some user interaction is required to "drive" it. In the one that bgruber linked to, it's clicking.

Here's a bigger version that doesn't require the user to know where to put his mouse. The tab-space combo is just as legitimate as requiring that you plug a computer into a wall to power it in order to run a Java program. <http://elilies.com/rule110-full.html>

Also, I haven't tested it on anything besides the latest Chrome on Mac.

<comment><USER3> > No real-world thing can actually be Turing complete

But when you say Turing-complete, I assume something along the lines of "a programming language can be built on top of it and you can create interactive applications using such a programming language instead of javascript".

It seems like that's not the case at all.

<comment><USER4> Everyone's being a little cagey about what Turing Completeness really means, in layman's terms, because I think the assumption is that if you're here, you should already have a deep understanding of it.

So no, as others have said, you are completely off base as to what the significance of being Turing complete is. What Turing complete means is that given an infinite amount of memory and time, a language can simulate anything that is computable. (I won't get into what computable means, for that you will need to read and reread the relevant Wikipedia articles, along with a good book on Theory of Computation and probably a good one on Abstract Algebra.)

But the real significance of this is that you cannot write a program that can tell you meaningful facts about the behavior of an arbitrary Turing machine. For any program you write to determine the behavior of HTML + CSS, I could write a piece of HTML + CSS that your program will be unable to say anything about.

However, this particular proof actually only shows HTML + CSS is equivalent to a Linear Bounded Automaton, which unlike a Turing Machine can be predicted. And strictly speaking, even if you have a Turing-machine-equivalent language like C++, you can theoretically make some predictions about programs provided you can bound its memory, i.e., on a machine with less than 4 GB of memory, it is equivalent to a Linear Bounded Automaton. Now, of course actually writing a second program to do this may be impossible to do before the heat death of the universe, because Linear Bounded Automatons are still very powerful computing objects.

<comment><USER5> "But the real significance of this is that you cannot write a program that can tell you meaningful facts about the behavior of an arbitrary Turing machine. For any program you write to determine the behavior of HTML + CSS, I can write a piece of HTML + CSS that your program will be unable to say anything about."

Sorry, but this is false and for similar reasons is not reasonably considered Turing complete. The encoding presented here produces, for any particular HTML + CSS, a finite number of cells of an automata (and not only that, the number of cells is _linear_ in code size). That means that deciding any property about a given piece of code amounts to search over a finite space.

This is very different from true Turing completeness where a small set of rules might require unbounded space and computation to decide, and in general will not even be decidable. Now, the author of this code says in a parent post that we can't build a real Turing machine. That's true, but doesn't mean that we can't specify a real Turing complete process; it just means that for some executions we have to give up on running them.

In some cases, it makes sense to consider languages that are not actually Turing complete as approximately Turing complete. For example, if you take the C programming language, with a 64 bit memory space, then again there's technically only a finite space of possible program states. But in that case, you can have a 100 line C program that can generate 2^64 possible program states. Turing completeness is a reasonable approximation. If you had to allocate every bit of memory explicitly with a unique line of C code, it would no longer be very reasonable to consider C approximately Turing complete.

<comment><USER4> Yes, you're right, I've edited my post a bit to make it clearer that HTML+CSS is not Turing complete.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd like a more complete description of this.

My first thought is "no it's not", because you are encoding a fixed-sized grid in the HTML, which is then the total extent of the program. While no real machine has an "infinite tape", I think requiring the tape be embedded in the program itself is strengthing things a little far.

<comment><USER7> Why is it stretching things a little far? Non-infinite tape is, as you noted, a limit on _everything_ we consider turing complete: this is just running at a much higher level of abstraction than your computer. You could (if you were so inclined) create a physical machine with a grid of memory that behaved according to rules defined by CSS selectors. Just because this doesn't do direct memory access and behave like the computer or a traditional TM doesn't make it not a TM. (Or, at least, any less of a TM than the computer you're using.)

<comment><USER8> The real question is if this can deal with arbitrary amounts of finite memory. That is, could I express an instance of a program that requires a trillion "units" of memory w/o constructing a new "machine" that explicitly laid it out?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are two competing definitions of Turing complete here.

1\. The mathematical definition of Turing completeness: models which can simulate the computation of a hypothetical Turing machine. Idealized circuits are an example of this. Turing machines are an example of this. Programs with infinite memory are an example of this.

2\. The colloquial definition of Turing completeness: this is naturally ill- defined, but it roughly means an automated, finite model that performs arbitrary computation. I would say that a robotic Lego Turing machine is Turing complete. C is certainly Turing complete in this sense. Basic HTML isn't. The set of regexes (e.g, unix wildcards) isn't.

However, if I can choose a large enough regex, I can construct a decider for a given finite language. How then are regexes less powerful than C? The answer is they are just as powerful in the finite case, unless we set reasonable limits on what we mean by 'finite' and 'automated.'

This HTML+CSS is not Turing complete. The idealized version of this HTML+CSS is not Turing complete (unless you strangely accept the idealization of a "hand pressing tab space"). This HTML+CSS is also not Turing complete in the colloquial sense: it doesn't live up to the generally accepted notion of automation. It isn't executed by the machine.

<comment><USER10> > However, if I can choose a large enough regex, I can construct a decider for > a given finite language.

What do you mean by this? What is a "decider"? What do you mean by a finite language?

<comment><USER11> Language: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language>

Decision problem: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem>

Decider: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_that_always_halts>

These are fairly foundational concepts when talking about computational complexity.

<comment><USER10> > However, if I can choose a large enough regex, I can construct a decider for > a given finite language. How then are regexes less powerful than C?

Ok so upon reflection I think I see what you are getting at. Practical computers are have limited memory and so are, in principle, equivalent to a finite state machine.

So anything a practical computer can do a, perhaps ridiculously large, regular expression can also do?

Is that close?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As far as I remember is LaTeX (or TeX itself) touring complete, too. In the end, if you can simulate a turing machine (or another "equivalent" calculating "device") the language is itself turing complete. While not being a html/css wizard, by the amount of complex examples i saw you could do with only HTML/CSS3, I am not surprised that you can write a cellular automaton in it.

edit: typo (personal hangup with touring/turing)

<comment><USER2> TeX is very Turing complete. As is Java sans semicolons, C macros, and many other things that probably shouldn't be. Right now, I'm trying to figure out what the minimum number of characters you need in Ruby is to make it Turing complete. I'm pretty sure that if you restrict yourself to under 12 characters, it's still possible.

<comment><USER13> C macros are not Turing complete, they're a pushdown automaton.

C++ templates are.

Check out this IOCCC entry which does simulate a Turing machine, but only by having another script repeatedly run it.

Edit: Yes, I meant to copy the link, see mchouza's comment for the link.

<comment><USER14> Link: <http://www.ioccc.org/2001/> (herrmann1 files)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm probably tilting at windmills, but it's Turing _Equivalent_ , not Turing _Complete_.

<comment><USER16> It'll be a really big deal the day we find a model of computation more general than Turing machines. Till then, in most contexts they're interchangeable.

Also, if you really want to tilt at windmills, Turing complete is a weaker statement than Turing equivalent, so he isn't _wrong_.

<comment><USER15> No, you are misunderstanding.

A language _L_ is _complete_ for a complexity class _C_ if it is _in_ _C_ and all languages in _C_ can be reduced to _L_. "Turing" is not a complexity class, so "Turing Complete" is nonsense. And if it _did_ mean something, it would probably refer to a recursive language to which all other recursive languages could be reduced.

"Turing Equivalent" is something a programming language can be and doesn't have much to do with complexity theory.

<comment><USER16> _"Turing" is not a complexity class, so "Turing Complete" is nonsense._

Good thing that complexity theory isn't the only part of CS that uses the notion of completeness. Turing (aka recursively enumerable functions) is a _computability_ class, and it makes sense to talk about models of computation complete for that class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> <http://jsbin.com/owehi4/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't understand .. explain?

EDIT: part of not understanding is I ran it in firefox 3.5 -- not good. works better in chrome.

<comment><USER18> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110></comment></comment>


Show HN: One Person Canadian Startup, eh (1 year old) - <AUTHOR> http://artsavenue.ca

<comment><USER2> When I opened your splash page, I had no idea what it did, I clicked a link, waited for it to load, it took too long so I closed it.

You need to have a clear message about your product when someone hits your website, not just a list of cities, otherwise, poor, uneducated people like me get confused and leave the site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Recently, someone said they same thing. will be working on that today to make a clear what we do. thanks again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is this like <http://artcards.cc/> but for all kinds of art events? Per shanelja's comment - put a 1 sentence description of what your site does. I looked up new york and found some interesting events that I hadn't heard of, so there's value there.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah were trying to grow! glad you found something! haven't heard of artcards, took a peek and saw what they did. We do all art events like you said. thanks for the kind comments!

<comment><USER3> of course - good luck. If you have any follow up questions please email me - always happy to help out</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft is still terrible at naming things - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/01/technology/microsoft-windows-holographic/index.html <comment><USER2> The title of the article is "Microsoft unveils its new vision for Windows". Please don't use your opinion as title.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This should be called Microsoft Doors. Period.</comment>


Ask HN: Best route to software dev from pentesting - <AUTHOR> I'm currently contracted as a penetration tester, but I find the most exciting part of my week is when I get to code new tools and actually create cool things.
I've looked at junior positions doing software development (I'm interested in mainly django and android at this point) but they still often require a fair amount of experience.
I think I've probably developed quite a bad coding style - generally my projects are small, fast, and developed for me so hardly make it to release, which is something I've been reading up on to improve.
The upside is that I know a pretty wide range of tech - as a pentester I have to do code reviews of most common languages, I know low-level networking fairly well, I obviously understand security very well, and have a mindset built around the fact that every couple of weeks I'm given an application/technology I've never seen before and have to understand it really fast.
Do you have any pointers as to what the easiest way to get into software development might be? <comment><USER2> If you enjoy your pentesting role enough to continue doing it for awhile, start a side project (you don't have to publish it on Github if you don't want to) that's more ambitious than a pentesting tool.

Are you a network penetration test person, or primarily an appsec person? Another step you could take (talking my own book here, admittedly) is to move to an appsec firm, which will have you working in software full time. If that's something interesting to you, you can ping me directly; I probably know firms working wherever you are.

Most of my career has been as a software developer, actually shipping software. If I thought longer I could probably generate more advice, but my basic advice to you is to realize that most employed software developers are not all that great; you might be making things harder for yourself by applying for "junior" roles. Can you code? Can you build working systems? Apply for dev jobs. You'll eventually get one.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, I'm about to learn pentesting, I'm a dev/sysadmin/designer. I've not thought myself the complete lecture, but the definitive way to go for you is learning everything over @ <http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/>

I suggest that you leaern C and Python, because as a Pentester, these are the languages that are most relevant. C++/C#/PHP/Java etc. might be nice to have, but you can solve all of your tasks with C and Python more efficiently, thanks to the great Frameworks that have developed around these langauges. Checkout Continuum.io, NumPy, wxPython, wolframalpha.

If you run out of ideas, run this # pip search framework

Here's an example of what can be accomplished with Python: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Python_software>

Where should I start learning Pentesting? (I know Metasploit a little)

<comment><USER2> Can you code? Can you work in SFBA, Chicago, or NYC? You could contact me directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Put your email in your profile, people in HN might see this post and want to reach out.</comment>


Busy Parents Uber Kids Around for a Carpool Alternative - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-31/busy-parents-uber-kids-around-for-a-carpool-alternative.html <comment><USER3> Nothing surprising here - as society moves forwards, things that were once only available to the very rich classes slowly trickle down. Having a chauffeur for your kids used to be for the 0.1%, Uber and the like have now made it for the 1% (and even for the 5% in large cities like SF).

When networks of self driving cars start appearing, it'll reduce the cost so much that it'll trickle down to the 10%, then 50%, then to the 100% - <USER2> like the original car or the fridge did. When I used to work in downtown SF, taking an Uber from my house to work was only 2x as expensive as the bus, even though it was more like 4x-6x a few years ago. Over time and as technology/infrastructure improves this will go down to 1x, and then even below.

It'll be a great future where people don't own cars anymore (except for a select few who will for recreation, much like people still ride horses for fun now), and instead pay a monthly subscription fee for X miles of driving around per month. Much like cellphones, there'll probably be things like family plans and so on. Your kids will get a self driving car to pick them up from school, which will promptly drop them off at home/sports practice/etc. The car will then just drive to its next request, thus completely removing the need for parking (which will have a wonderful impact on American urban areas- larger sidewalks, no more need for giant parking lots everywhere), heavily minimizing traffic (no stop and go when all cars on the road can sync up in real time), heavily reducing lethal road accidents, etc.

Self driving vehicles will do for transport what the fridge did for food or the internet did for communications. It's going to be very, very exciting and I wish more people realized it so we could make it happen as fast as possible (e.g. a really forward thinking city could easily make a subpart of its downtown area open to self driving vehicles exclusively by 2020).

<comment><USER4> As Schumpeter said: "[e]lectric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them... The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort."

Creative destruction, as enabled by captitalism allows everyone to gain access to the luxuries only previously enjoyed by the rich; it takes time, but we all our lives are improving in astonishing and unexpected ways.

<comment><USER5> So which Uber driver is taking the calls to the poorer neighborhoods?

<comment><USER6> One of the best, if not the best part of Uber is the payment. No tipping, no haggling, and no getting screwed, whether you are the driver of passenger. Don't need to worry about getting stiffed because it's already paid for.

<comment><USER7> You might not get cash stolen, but might still worry about getting carjacked

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >"I'm very happy to have an Uber account," said the teen. "It shows the trust that my parents have placed in me and it allows me to get from place to place in a flash."

Is I just me, or does that not sound like how a 14-year-old would talk? It seems more like some PR rep wrote that and asked him to sign off.

<comment><USER9> I agree. Some of it is possible but no 14 year old would say "in a flash".

<comment><USER10> "No 14 year old", really? In some private schools I know, that's how you're expected to talk to your teachers, and fourteen-year-old kids are certainly able to learn to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not sure how they missed [https://shuddle.us/](https://shuddle.us/) \- which basically a more vetted uber for kids.

This is a brilliant shift of use for these services, even if it's only used sometimes (gets a little pricey). Way better than collect calling my Mom and leaving my name as "I need a pickup from school" so she could refuse the call. Or waiting for an hour for her to be ready.

<comment><USER12> The spelling of that domain name made me shutter. (see what I did there?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What ... these parents have that much faith to allow strangers/Uber drivers to pick their kids up?

WoW, not my kid... a driver-less Google or Telsa car thats proven safe sure, but not random strangers.

Uber can vet their drivers all they want, but there are going to be a few or more bad eggs(drivers/sex offenders).

<comment><USER14> If uber had some kind of UberKid service where you paid a premium for somebody with a college degree in a childcare-related certification (ECE, educational assistant, teacher, etc) and thus a proper professional qualifications and a cert at stake, then it could work but it would have to be a _large_ premium to attract drivers with that sort of background.

<comment><USER15> Installing a camera would be massively cheaper than the driver having to have a college degree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I uber to work daily (cheaper than parking!). Uber is lovely. Been toying with sending the kids off to school in one, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I'm sure uber is aware of the huge pent up demand, and will roll out a family oriented service in the next few years. And there will be much rejoicing.

Driving kids to and fro is soul crushing in a way that people who don't have to cannot comprehend.

<comment><USER17> Let's give anybody who deals with traffic the benefit of the doubt and say that they can probably comprehend how much it sucks to be in traffic more often.

That aside, do you tip your Uber driver? It's interesting for me to find out that most people don't tip their drivers, and I'd like to know if it's something you do when going to/from work versus, say, a night out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Rich parents use taxi to haul kids around" \- How is this news, and why is it worthy of HN?

</comment><comment><USER19> Really wish I had uber in my area, sadly I'm not in one of the big cities.

</comment><comment><USER20> I have local friends whose daughters are driven to learn many different things. (I know the friends through my daughter's club soccer team.) One day we had a conversation about the eventual era of self-driving cars, and I commented that it would be a convenience to be able to put my daughter in a self-driving car to go to soccer practice. A mother involved in the conversation DREADED that prospect, saying, "If I didn't have to drive my daughter, I wouldn't be able to say to her that she has to limit her activities. She would get in the car with her cello and go right from soccer practice to cello practice, and never have any down time." I hadn't thought of it that way before, but that's right. Sometimes I say no to my daughter not on the rationale of "that would make you too busy" but rather on the rationale of "I haven't got time to drive you to that once a week." Some ambitious kids could lose free time altogether if the cars drive themselves.

EDIT TO REPLY TO FIRST TWO REPLIES:

One of you has said you are not a parent, and I'm asked in the other reply about free time being time to decide what you want. I acknowledge that both concerns are valid.

In other words I agree that if my chief rationale for telling my own daughter that she shouldn't sign up for a sports program is that she will be overtired and risk injury besides, that is the reason to lead off with in conversation. (What parents usually find in parenting is that many parenting decisions are overdetermined, being grounded in multiple rationales, but children also think their desires have multiple rationales, and parents and children have conversations with a lot of serve-and-volley about rationales for decisions.) Similarly, if "we can't afford it" is the fact, rather than just an excuse, I would say that. We cherish honesty in our family--and, honestly, sometimes the reason we don't consider other activities for our children is that we would be run ragged driving them around.

Children have desires that go beyond their ability to estimate the costs and benefits of pursuing those desires. (Yeah, adults do too, but this limitation in planning and self-assessment is a big part of the basis for distinguishing between adults and minors.) When my daughter is pursuing her own schedule with her own money, I am sure she will continue to delight in challenging herself and keeping busy. Today, sometimes, as the adult in the room my job is to say, "Remember that time we signed up for [name of activity] and then you found out you were too busy to keep doing that?" We let her try out a lot of things, but sometimes we just have to say, "You need sleep, and you need daytime rest, and for your own development sometimes you need just to sit and think and not do structured things all day." The girls I meet through my daughter's soccer team are all high-ambition girls who push themselves academically (several are in full-time foreign language immersion school programs) and athletically (they are in the top team in our soccer club for their age group) and in other domains. We parents are all proud of them, but we know sometimes we are doing best by our children when we tell them to take a break.

<comment><USER21> That's a really weird worry. If downtime is needed you could be honest with your kid instead of relying on some external excuse. Admitedly I'm not a parent, but lying doesn't seem like a good basis for a parent child relationship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Um are there not going to be lots of child protection laws getting in the way. I can see the Cabbies in London praying the scandal in Rotherham in aid to get Uber banned

</comment><comment><USER23> It's just another cab service... why all the fuss?</comment>