Mobile payments: great for coffee, but not much else - <AUTHOR> http://blog.thomvest.com/muchsizzlelittlesteak/ <comment><USER2> As a point of sale system developer (Ambur, an iOS app), the problem I'm seeing with all these solutions is that the good ones are end-to-end (i.e. the point of sale is manufactured by the payment service), and the bad ones rely on point of sale integration.

The current division between point of sale and payment is that way for a reason, namely it allows for each to focus on its core competency and run with it. Square is a terrible point of sale for a business (it's _great_ for personal use!), because they're not willing or able to built out a whole point of sale system just to satisfy the needs of businesses. We've had an incredible number of people since we launched extremely excited to switch from Square over to our product for some very basic features, such as receipt printing, much less things like managing what your employees can do in the system, maintaining payroll and separate user accounts, and a thousand other fundamental features that point of sale systems _need_ to do to be anything besides a trendy, cheap, alternative.

The other payment services have little to no traction, and I'd like to think that's because of just how well Square is designed. Unfortunately, until Square either decides to build a full point of sale system and work on selling it (unlikely), or open up to 3rd parties via some API (which I doubt will happen, I've tried to get in touch multiple times to request this and haven't received any meaningful response), I don't see it getting much traction beyond personal use.

<comment><USER3> I find your comment interesting and perhaps there's an implicit nod to Aloha/Radiant Systems somewhere in there? As someone directly involved in the market, I'm curious about your thoughts on where the opportunity (creating more card accepting merchants vs. winning market share of current participants) is right now wtf to the POS space. NCR just acquired Radiant Systems, so that seemed like an indicator of disruption in the space.

<comment><USER2> I firmly believe the POS space is ripe for some really intense disruption. Tablets (namely, iPads given that's what 90% of the market actually owns) cost $500 apiece, are easily accessible, and let business owners demo point of sale systems software right on their device, instead of just placing a call to Micros/Aloha and making a call based on specs and feature checklists, when those feature checklists include a lot of convoluted features they won't end up using.

The problem is, even with the revolution of availability in the space, given the poor purchasing experience with previous point of sale systems, most business owners are A) not very excited to have to purchase a point of sale and B) cannot possibly comprehend a point of sale that can run on commodity hardware. All sorts of silly questions regarding reliability crop up.

But, I digress. Regarding payments, I think that point of sale developers regard it as just a necessary evil that we have to roll our eyes and hold our nose that we need to integrate these payment solutions. We end up writing integration for each payment processor themselves, and each of their unique XML/SOAP/what have you APIs instead of spending time on what we care about. I would _love_ for a user-centric company like Square to come in and just offer a usable API, but that's not really their gig and it's a complex situation.

Payments are in need of disruption, sure, but the first person to 'win' will be the one who decides they're not going to go completely vertical anymore, and has a nice, full, API with a good accounting/reporting web service to back it up. At that point, I can trust they're going to get my customers the best rates and widest acceptance possible, and I can easily write integration for them and push my customers their way. I could care _less_ about this and that detail about slightly lower rates, or gift card programs, or cutting me .005 percent of each transaction. I just want to give my customers the tools to run their business correctly and accurately at the lowest possible development cost to myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yup. And the only thing that twitter and social networks are good for is inconsequntial chatter and trading funny cat pictures. For that matter, the same applies to blogs too. And smart phones, and tablets. Hell, maybe even personal computers too. What can you do with them anyway, keep track of recipes? This whole internet thing is probably just a fad since I can set up a straw man caricature of it and knock it down easily without digging in to the fundamentals with any degree of depth whatsoever.

Let me be serious a moment. Most new technologies start out limited. Look at the automobile or the airplane or the personal computer. In the PC's case it wasn't anything more than a toy, a hobby device for years. But it's the fundamentals that matter. Whether or not extensive air travel is feasible is not dependent on the quirks of the Wright flyer but rather on the fundamentals, and on the characteristics of later generation vehicles like the DC-3 or 747. The same goes for mobile payments. In 50 years, maybe sooner, keys and wallets will be obsolete because mobile computing devices will be used for payment, identity, and access.

</comment><comment><USER5> Mobile payments have been very successful in some countries like Kenya, where the M-pesa system offered by a leading telecom provider is a leading mobile money service, with over 8 million subscribers. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa>

</comment><comment><USER6> In my country, I made a replacement for cab payments with mobile payments. We had the cab payment people, and all the telcos on board. However, because of the telcos selling virtual goods, they were used to 30%-50%-70% or more of the transaction. Where as the cab people were getting 10% on the credit card payments. The telcos gave up massive real world markets in order to keep their tiny ring tone, and wall paper markets.

idiots

</comment><comment><USER7> Bluetooth, the Internet, Smartphones, Twitter, Facebook.

All were technologies that had to incubate quite some time, some for a decade or more, before they were widely usable.

It concerns me when a tech writer looks at something and says "it will never be useful within 6 months" when there is a ton of infrastructure involved.

It's not about the immediate payoff, it's about the future.

</comment><comment><USER8> Even though they didn't test FaceCash, here's our general response to the "mobile payments are useless" argument:

[http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/Paying-With-Your- Phone-...](http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/Paying-With-Your-Phone-Is- Awesome-Because-Its-Not-1960-Anymore-In-Reply-To-Farhad-Manjoos-Paying-With- Your)

</comment><comment><USER9> Mobile payments using contactless technologies such as NFC goes beyond the transaction at the Point-Of-Sale, in terms of providing a context to my payment.

Even though it maybe that it would be easier to take your credit card and swipe faster than taking out your phone, launching the app and then initiating a mobile payment, the advantages are as follows:

\- The app can tell me if for a particular retail category, I have crossed any predefined limits I have chosen: Say 300 dollars for Gas this month, or 200 dollars eating out.

\- The app can tell me, if I make this payment, whether that impacts any bills or checks that are set to clear right away. This lets me avoid any late payments, bounced checks etc.

\- If I had a debit card and a credit card with the bank, the app can choose the right card for me to use. If I am near my credit limit, then the app can default to my debit card. Or If my account is drawn out, then it could use my credit card for the purchase thereby saving me Overdraft fees. Or if there were specific coupons that would warrant the use of one over the other, then the app could show benefits of using both and let me choose.

\- If the purchase amount is significant, and requires my credit limit to be raised, then the card could do an STP and ask me to whether to increase my credit limit.

\- If the purchase amount is significant, instead of using a credit card, the bank could ask me whether i would like to open a small loan and approve me rightaway by showing me the salient details (rate and term).

\- The app could show me how many rewards points I stand to gain from making this purchase.

\- Even better, The app could possibly allow me to use my rewards points towards the payment instead of paying cash or credit, provided that the bank and the merchant has an agreement in place.

A lot of this might just be wishful dream for a while, but shedding the plastic for a powerful payment alternative will finally deliver on many fronts including the ones outlined above. If Banks continue to think and operate as they did in the past, they stand to lose out against upstarts like Square, Dwolla who are disrupting the payment industry. But I do agree that the players in this space, including the NFC enabled terminals, Banks, Payment Processors all need to work together in facilitating this and ensuring its a seamless process. Yes, it will be a radical shift from how we pay for things today, but there are tangible benefits to customers who are willing to change their payment modalities.

This space is still being shaken out in terms of players and alliances. NFC is still in its early stages, but I believe this is the way to go.

I am interested in hearing others opinions on my views as well.

<comment><USER10> i dont think any of that matters. nobody cares.

the app can ask me to confirm the transaction after the retailer initiates. that's a game changer.

there is of course lots of lobbying to be done, but you need to already have a business interest to get the laws fixed.

<comment><USER9> i disagree. Lobbying and all can come later. Any bank who decides to take advantage of this new mobile channel both to engage their customers and are able to get a customer to change his payment modalities, they can recapture the mindshare they are losing today to the likes of Google and Square. Doubtful if these financial institutions are as prescient to realize the disruptive forces currently in play in the financial sector, but if they do then they can stay relevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's really disappointing that none of the developers of these systems thought to add anonymity as a feature.

It's also sad that early adopters--who tend to be hackers/geeks--aren't demanding anonymous transactions. It could even be limited anonymity, like being untraceable except by sender or recipient.

Yeah, we don't need anonymity to buy coffee (not usually, but see note), but we certainly won't get it later on for transactions where it _is_ needed if it doesn't get built in from the beginning.

(note) Who were you meeting when you got that coffee? Oh never mind, I can see in the centralized records who bought a coffee immediately before and immediately after you, and also who you reimbursed when you bought two coffees.

<comment><USER3> I share your concern, and I believe there are people thinking like that working on solutions. If I had the talent, it would have been built 3 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm still not sure what the value proposition is supposed to be for me, as a consumer. In one pocket I have my credit and debit cards. In the other pocket I have my mobile phone. Unlike my phone, my credit and debit cards never run out of batteries. Why do I want to replace one with the other?

</comment><comment><USER13> I'd say PayPal is "Better than checks" for the payer, but not for the payee. Transaction costs are a multiple higher.

I notice Interac E-mail Transfer is not listed. I've used that before. A bit of a pain to set up, but fees are lower than PayPal.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think a lot of the use cases will come _after_ we have this implemented everywhere. It's often not obvious what a _new_ technology can be used for, but it becomes clear later.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would be interested to see responses from the companies tested.</comment>


Would love thoughts on new messaging-gaming hybrid app called HYNT - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hynt/id935267032?ls=1&mt=8

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, just (finally) got this onto the app store. It is a way to send timed + gated messages. Users can time their messages for delivery in the future, or require N number of users (3 in v1) to join in, in order to reveal the message The idea is to build in social / casual game mechanics into messaging. I'm humbly requesting any thoughts on design, idea, and anything else. Thanks!</comment>


The Holy Men of India - <AUTHOR> https://realization.org/p/misc/jung.holy-men-of-india.html <comment><USER3> While Jung here mostly seem to admire Ramana and India's philosophy, it is my opinion that world has largely slighted and meted out injustice to India's philosophical traditions. There are many exceptions, primarily among physicists and non-academic philosophers, but most commonly cited literature is very dismissive. It could be due to two reasons -

1\. 1000+ years of invasions and occupations which deliberately mispotrayed indic philosophy, still has its effect.

2\. Earlier academicians took a reductionist view or outright dismissal due to incorrect translation of literature and lack of cultural understanding. The translations were also incorrect as they were retrofitted into then familiar philosophies, religions and terms.

Probably, same argument can be applied to many other ancient cultures too but I think over time native or non-native academicians took genuine interest and brought out the the best. For India, unfortunately, everything got entangled with politics post-independence, including philosophy. Indians themselves either have next to no knowledge of it's philosophical treasures (barring few sayings and quotes) or take very negative view of it's past contributions since that's what they have largely read. The end result is that now traditionalists are very apprehensive of any scrutiny or change as they feel more and more cornered. On the hand, modernists are even more vocally abusive of past, as with flooded with all sort of information (like the one from OP) general audience has started questioning their stance as well. I hope, eventually people will get to see the depth of Indian philosophies and with that start seeing religious text as high philosophies and its "holy-men" as philosophers (what they really are and as Jung sees) and not as godmen who craft miracles and wishes.

<comment><USER4> Having been very much from the modernist camp, a few years ago I read some Norse mythology followed by some Greek. Whatever I knew of Indian mythology was mostly through festivals, stories told by elders during childhood and some children's books. Norse felt pretty much tribal in comparison and Greek was a bit better than Norse, still it felt short of childhood memories. So I started to dig up more about Indian, and boy it took me a while in wikipedia figuring out the chronology and even the different kinds of literature that existed, a real rabbit hole. I have just about started out and got a long way to go.

<comment><USER5> Someone making it easier for the current educated english speaking Indian to know about their history and culture is a guy called Jaggi Vasudev also known to his fans as Sadhguru.

His organisation Isha has 2 ashrams, one in Missippi, US and a bigger one in Coimbatore, India.

Seems to have quite the following as well as is evident by some of the discussions from diverse[1] set of people

1\. [https://www.youtube.com/user/sadhguru/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/sadhguru/videos)

<comment><USER4> Not him please. Even otherwise I feel not wise to follow a single guru if your interests are more academic otherwise it generally leads to a more cultish experience. There is no single canonical way to 'enlightenment' here, each one can find their own.

What I am doing - starting with Upanishads (aka Vedanta, literally the end part of Vedas, where you get the gist), there are 10 major ones which come with commentary by Adi Shankaracharya. Remaining are not minor in the sense of importance, just that you get to them once you grasp the major ones first as they come without the authoritative commentary. They are overall philosophical in nature.

Next come the Puranas. Again there are about 8-10 of these. These contain most of the stories or the 'mythology' which we heard in our childhood and read in the books.

There are many more but I guess I'll start here and see where it takes me.

<comment><USER4> I am currently reading the Aitareya Upanishad with commentary by Swami Chinmayananda (founder Chinmaya Mission), but you can find multiple well rated ones online. For Puranas too there are multiple options though I don't think one could go wrong with the translations by Dr Bibek Debroy (leading Economist and Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Look up his limericks on twitter) who has also translated the Ramayana and only the third person to translate the unabridged version of the Mahabharata.

Otherwise if you can read Hindi and manage to find physical or electronic versions, would recommend Gita Press versions. English ones often come with a multitude of pronunciation symbols (due to the limits of English) which unaccustomed readers may find a bit irritating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > It is evident that Shri Ramana has either really been more or less absorbed > by the self, or has at least struggled earnestly all his life to extinguish > his ego in it.

In fact it was spontaneous:

> July 1896, at age 16, he had a sudden fear of death. He was struck by "a > flash of excitement" or "heat", like some avesam, a "current" or "force" > that seemed to possess him, while his body became rigid. He initiated a > process of self-enquiry, asking himself, "what it is that dies?" He > concluded the body dies, but this "current" or "force" remains alive, and > recognized this "current" or "force" as his Self, which he later identified > with "the personal God, or Iswara".

> In one of his rare written comments on this process Ramana Maharshi wrote, > "inquiring within Who is the seer? I saw the seer disappear leaving That > alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say I saw. How then could > the thought arise to say I did not see."

> Later in life, he called his death experience akrama mukti, "sudden > liberation", as opposed to the krama mukti, "gradual liberation"

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

Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment.

FWIW I recently found this manual for "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss"

[https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm](https://albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm)

<comment><USER7> > Ramana Maharshi taught the simple, direct method of enlightenment.

Can someone explain why I should want "enlightenment"?

<comment><USER8> What do you think "enlightenment" means to you? Then it will be easier to understand whether you want it or not.

<comment><USER7> I have no idea to be honest. But when ever I read about these sort of things it seems like people are seeking after some insight that requires meditation or introspection of some sort and I have absolutely no idea why people are seeking it or find it in any way necessary? Am I missing out on something? I am perfectly content with existence and whatever idea I have of "I" or "self" seems sufficient. But I still find it curious that other people don't?

For example, I'd rather study mathematics than meditate or seek enlightenment. I'm not sure why I should spend time pursing that over other things I enjoy.

<comment><USER8> If you are perfectly content with your existence and your understanding of the "self", you do not need to pursue paths of meditation or enlightenment. One might think that you are being stubborn and egotistical by implying that you have everything figured out but those opinions don't matter. It is easier to live your life the way you want it individually but when you are part of a society, others expect you to behave in ways that might contradict your actions but that's just how the societal system works.

As to why others choose to seek the said "enlightenment" varies from person to person. Sometimes its hard to find meaning in your everyday life and you get stuck in existential angst and it is not easy to go on. There one find comfort in seeking the answers and meaning through western or eastern philosophies , through meditation, through religion, through community or whatever fits well to their sense of the world.

As the Easter Indic philosophy points out that the optimal and yet hardest path to "enlightenment" is not in abandonment of your responsibilites and an ascetic way of life but in the "middle" i.e. where you do your duty towards others in your everyday life while being aware of the the highest moral standards and doing your best to adhere to them (reflection of Stoicism here). I would assume this is something you believe you are already doing so cheers to that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I found this to be very insightful from Jung that he beautifully captures here:

"For the fact is, I doubt his uniqueness; he is of a type which always was and will be. Therefore it was not necessary to seek him out. I saw him all over India, in the pictures of Ramakrishna, in Ramakrishna's disciples, in Buddhist monks, in innumerable other figures of the daily Indian scene, and the words of his wisdom are the sous-entendu of India's spiritual life. Shri Ramana is, in a sense, a hominum homo, a true "son of man" of the Indian earth. He is "genuine," and on top of that he is a "phenomenon" which, seen through European eyes, has claims to uniqueness. But in India he is merely the whitest spot on a white surface..."

</comment><comment><USER9> For those wondering about Maharshi, I would wholeheartedly recommend the book "Be as You Are, the Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi" edited by David Godman (Penguin) ISBN 978-0-14-019062-5.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am more familiar with the Buddhist literature on the self and the theory of mind which was developed in India alongside the Vedic approaches. There should be something similar in the Vedic system.

The article is guilty of the same fault it attributes to others - <USER2> looking at Indian philosophy and its theory of self from a Western lens and missing the vast majority of literature.

In the Buddhist system, they first start by dismantling the idea of a fixed unchanging self by various. This is accomplished in progressively sophisticated arguments - self is just an aggregation of parts, to self is just that which functions to self is a transient changing phenomenon we construct on a moment-by-moment basis.

Then there are extremely sophisticated divisions of the function of the (so- called) mind. See Plato ([https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW](https://stanford.io/2UFYPZW)) for a comphrensive overview and this one for good readable ([https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian...](https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/indian- theories-of-mind.pdf)) intro.

There are many schools of thought in ancient India like the Carvaka, who were rational/materialist, which no longer exist. Then there are traditions like Mahanyana and Theravada Buddhism that were destroyed after the Islamic conquest from 1100~1400 AD. No survey is complete without considering these traditions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Books and scriptures serve to indicate the existence of the Higher Power or Self and to point the way to It. That is their essential purpose. Apart from that they are useless.

However, they are voluminous, in order to be adapted to the level of development of every seeker.

As a person rises in the scale he finds the stages already attained to be only stepping stones to higher stages, until finally the goal is reached. When that happens, the goal alone remains and everything else, including the scriptures, become useless.

The intricate maze of philosophy of the various schools is said to clarify matters and to reveal the Truth, but in fact it creates confusion where none need exist. To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious, so why not remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self?

<comment><USER10> I will try but any incoherence is just my lack of understanding ;)

Why prove that the self is a delusion and it does not exist. First lets try a simple example of refutation of the self - I am putting a car together part by part, first the chassis, then the engine block, then the tires. At each point I turn to ask you "is it a car yet". You say no but at some point, you say "its a car now". The notion of "this is a car now" is created in your mind the moment the last part was added. The last part by itself does not contain "car" any more than other parts. Similarly, we can explain the notion of self. It is an illusion formed in the mind. Once we understand that it does not exist but is simply a collection of physical and mental phenomena - we have reached no- self.

Why bother with this? The realization of no-self creates the space to understand that we can be anything because we lack a fixed nature (self).

Of course, this leads to many apparent contradictions. Why should the present me bother to help the future me if the self is illusory and changing (i.e. not fixed) ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> "Present me and future me..."

"why should..."

all these... also thoughts...

questions like these... undecidable...

* thoughts are the words of your language in your mind.

* The ego is thought.

* The ego is the I-thought.

* "I am happy", "I am sad", "I did this", "I did that". There are so many sentences that are thought of with the word I in them. That thought "I" in each of those sentences is the ego.

* The root of thought is the I thought.

* Disconnected the I-thought from the external sense objects to which it attaches, and all other thoughts will fall away.

* Follow the I-thought to its source.

* To turn the attention that normally goes out to the world around 180 degrees and to look inward, towards awareness watching awareness.

* Disconnected from external sense objects, the I-thought becomes unstable and retreats to the source and disappears.

* What remains is the Self!

<comment><USER10> I wish removing the ego was as simple as pulling a linguistic trick of dropping the "I" in a sentence or saying just dont think of the I.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ramana's experience with a near death incident reminds me of Wittgenstein enrolling in the army for the war so that he can have a near death experience himself

<comment><AUTHOR> Wittgenstein is special.

what are his books if not non-dual pointings?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have read a lot about Jung and Ramana Maharshi when I was younger.

Carl Jung had very strange inner life. He could create hallucinatory beings to talk and interact with, while still fully understanding that they were inside his mind. Very atypical mind. Interesting person to read about and influenced western thinking about psychology.

As a scientist and psychologist he gave new ideas, not better scientific understanding. Probably because his unique psyche. His ideas are too much influenced by what is to be Carl Jung.

Ramana Maharshi was another atypical person, probably had some neurologically interesting going on in his mind. As a young boy he could sleep so deep that his friends could drag him outside and beat him without waking him up.

One Buddhist teacher described Maharshi as the most realized person he ever met, but his method of teaching was not as good as what other meditation practices can achieve. He gave some rudimentary instructions, but if you are not a worshipper type there was no reason to stick around him. Mostly people just gathered around to worship and hear him talk.

<comment><USER13> Nothing about his teachings is rudimentary.

The feel like that because they look as simple thoughts.

But those simple thoughts are enough to attain realization of the self, according to hindu philosophy.

However, they are not suited for the normal layman, because realization through Ramana Maharshis teachings involves a certain level of knowledge and thought.

I highly encourage you to read "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi" by his disciple.

In those talks, maharshi breaks down how the elaborate hindu cultural and vedic literature ultimately boils down to utter simplicity.

<comment><USER12> I have read it. The point is that for committed practitioners reading books and listening teaching talks is not is not enough. It helps only so much.

Buddhist teacher was someone who had meditated and studied decades. He recognized Maharshis was very realized. His point was that Maharshis was not able to teach more than that was in his talks in personal contact.

Well known fact in these circles is that medicore person who has struggled his whole life can teach his way to other in personal contact much better than someone who is just amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not really interested what Jung says about Maharshi - I had a Jung phase after my Freud phase, aged about 20, and came away not at all impressed.

Also had a Hindu guru (and many other religions) phase in my mid 20s. I loved Vivekananda, but Maharshi was the most impressive. I read the _Gospel of Ramana Maharshi_ again 20 years later..and 90%+ of it still seemed true, because he mostly taught from his direct experience, not what he'd heard or read in books. What he knew to be true.

More immediately accessible for westerners might be Gangaji, an American woman, who has videos (some on youtube) and books out, who is in Maharshi's lineage, and has that same quality of speaking from direct experience. She's great.

Also I got a lot from Ram Dass's books and tapes. Yes, the guy who was a Harvard psychology professor until he had LSD. Super-articulate and I love his attitude, full of love and joy.

</comment><comment><USER15> It is interesting how the buddhist conception of not-self goes against this.

People often confuse Indian philosophy with Hinduism. That's usually not the case. The western equivalents would be Neo-Platonism and Stoicism, which have little to do with Greek Paganism or Christianity. It seems cultures all across the world come up with similar ideas.

People should be vary of fraudsters and cults. There are plenty of holy men who run a shady business and use magic tricks to deceive others for personal benefit.

\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grDKdmUcGig) [Documentary Holy Men and Fools]

\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcPuRaSEq1I) [James Randi]

I also remember watching documentaries about Osho and Bikram yoga on Netflix, which highlight spiritual narcissism.</comment>


Show HN: Directory history for your shell - <AUTHOR> http://sidnicio.us/2012/shell-directory-history-back-and-forward/

<comment><USER2> Very cool.

"It's a set of Bash function that replaces cd and adds b and f commands."

In case this makes anyone hesitate, note that it's not an absolute replacement or reimplentation of cd, it calls the builtin cd and you still get all that. That was my initial concern.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I made this at work and it's been super handy for bringing some sanity to how I move around. I thought y'all might find it useful too.</comment>


Marie Curie Day - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2012/10/marie-curie-day.html

<comment><USER2> Marie Curie is undeniably one of the greatest female role-figures in science of the last century. I don't know why she isn't more revered, although perhaps are here are a few reasons why: (Note: I bring them up mostly in hopes of pointing out how silly they are)

1\. Her work eventually killed her. There was no way for the Curies to know what effect long-term radiation exposure would have, but it's still not a huge image booster for her to have died from material handling practices that would be considered idiotic today.

2\. She wasn't a "lone wolf". i.e. She did much of her work with her husband Pierre, who shared the Nobel Prize for physics with her. Pierre was an instructor when they met and undoubtedly gave her a huge helping hand right when she needed it. Never mind that she came from a poor background and showed remarkable determination just getting into college in the first place, or that she would later be the sole recipient of a Nobel prize for chemistry!

3\. People are still scared of words like "radioactive" and "radiation". Just look at how comfortable people are with coal power that kills thousands every year as a part of normal operation. Then note how those same people freak out when a nuclear plant threatens to give a handful of people cancer, but only after being horribly mismanaged and then hit by an improbable sequence of natural disasters! Arguably, Curie is scary by her association with something people are unreasonably paranoid about.

4\. Let's face it, Ada Lovelace was a bit of a looker, or at least she was painted that way. She even had a sexy sounding name. We have real, unromantic photographs of Curie on the other hand the reveal her to be rather plain by comparison, plus her name is now linked with a _scary_ unit of radioactive decay! It's a case of the Belle vs the school-marm.

<comment><USER3> Not sure about in US, but I'm pretty sure majority of kids in this part of the world knows who Marie Curie is than Ada Lovelace.

Ada Lovelace is celebrated among us the computer geeks, because she's the female icon for the field.

<comment><USER4> I learned of Marie Curie in school (~30yrs ago US). Never heard of Ada Lovelace until much later.

And <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper> way, way more awesome than Ada. Length of nanosecond <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpsKnWZrJ8>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I too love Marie Curie and the 1927 Solvay Conference's picture (which sits in my living room for the edification of my kids!)

She's a hero here in France but I don't know about her reputation in the English speaking world.

She was a very amazing person. Born in Poland, she studied secretly for years in her native country, because higher education was not opened to females! Then she moved to Paris to join her sister and continued her education during the day, while tutoring in the evenings to pay for it.

\- - -

There was a nice play (in French) that I saw in 1989, called "Les Palmes de monsieur Schutz"

<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Palmes_de_monsieur_Schutz>

A movie was later made from the play. I didn't see the movie but hear it's not too bad for that kind of adaptation from scene to screen (and it has cameos from Pierre-Gilles de Gennes and Georges Charpak).

<comment><USER6> > She's a hero here in France

and obviously in Poland. But here we call her with her full Polish(hers)-French(husband) name, not only the French part.

a new bridge in Warsaw was recently named after her <http://goo.gl/maps/Y1X5d>

<comment><USER7> And there is a university in Lublin named after her too.

<comment><USER8> I've graduated it :)

It was created as communist-approved alternative to KUL(Catholic University of Lublin - the only university independent from communist government in 1944-1989 Poland). Now it's the other way around (KUL is heavily influenced by catholic church, and umcs is more-or-less independent).

BTW - my university uses French order of writting Maria name "Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie". Maria sometimes used French order (with husband surname first), and sometimes used Polish order (with husband surname second), but rarely skipped "Skłodowska" altogether.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maria Skłodowska-Curie, to be exact. She moved to France and married there, but never rejected her Polish origins. In fact she supported Polish independence, founded a scientific institute in Warsaw and named one of the elements she discovered after Poland.

<comment><USER10> While she was born Maria Salomea Skłodowska, she studied in Paris and Sorbonne. She was denied higher education in Poland because she was a _woman_. Later, University of Kraków also rejected her, because she was a _woman_.

It's not nice, but I think it's OK to call her a French scientist. Poland clearly didn't want her. It is an old tradition that best polish scientists, athletes and inventors go abroad. They're not valued in the country.

<comment><USER11> So following that reasoning, a chinese scientist who made his/her PhD and research work in the USA should be called "an american researcher"? I think you can understand that that is not only not nice, but just wrong. If you think that not respecting her because she was a woman was a terrible thing (I agree), then we should not do the same, and as a sign of respect, at least, we should call her by her real name

<comment><USER10> She was technically Polish, but she didn't owe much to Poland. Especially not her successes in science. That's what I mean. For me it's ethically wrong to boast about Maria Skłodowska-Curie as a Polish scientist. And it's not just "not respecting" ! It's likely that she wouldn't achieve anything if she chose to stay in Poland. She was denied higher education !

<comment><USER9> As I wrote before, Poland didn't exist at the time -- it was occupied by Russians trying hard to wipe or nationality for good, also by attenuating Polish science and culture. Thus many Poles have fled for freedom of not being oppressed for being Polish. About owning anything; she left Poland being 24, so she get all the basics and conducted here first research in Poland thanks to underground structures -- if born in France, she might end up as a housewife. Anyway, the only thing that matters is that she always thought of herself as a Pole and done much to prove it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why do people always omit the "Skłodowska" part? She has used her maiden name through all her life and always identified with her Polish origins, so it might be a little bit disrespectful. There simply are too many signs that she would want to be remembered as Marie Skłodowska-Curie, not just Marie Curie.

<comment><AUTHOR> In my case I plead ignorance. I grew up knowing her as Marie Curie and not as Marie Skłodowska-Curie. Who does one pronounce Skłodowska?

<comment><USER13> yet you did not fix your mistake in your article title, guess you have a lot of fun

imagine yourself having fun with your ignorance of some jewish scientist, it's exactly the same problem, even though more Poles died during WWII than jews

<comment><USER8> Chill out. No need to explain by bad will, what can be perfectly well explained by ignorance.

BTW counting victims is really bad style. Most were Polish Jews, and how you count them depends on what you want to prove.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Marie Skłodowska-Curie

... since we recently had a story about recognizing contributions of polish people: [http://www.smh.com.au/world/honour-for-overlooked-poles- who-...](http://www.smh.com.au/world/honour-for-overlooked-poles-who-were- first-to-crack-enigma-code-20121009-27b9y.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Marie Curie was a groundbreaking scientist and an admirable figure.

The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant.

Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as excellent scientists, leaving gender out of the discussion?

<comment><AUTHOR> Just to be clear: my blog post is not arguing that there should be a Marie Curie Day, it is arguing that if you are going to have a day named after a woman scientist as a celebration of women in science then I think Ada Lovelace is a poor choice.

<comment><USER15> I don't think either is a suitable 'trophy woman' of science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems a bit sad that we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two?

I think it's perfectly legitimate to celebrate Marie Curie but at the same time also celebrate Ada Lovelace, and I don't see how the two are in competition.

If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science? Aren't there other computer pioneers worth celebrating? Well, yes, but talking about Turing doesn't lessen them.

And, for that matter, why do women have to be their own category at all? Why does "Ada Lovelace Day" automatically mean "Woman Day", does that mean that we should also elect one single man to name a day after?

<comment><USER17> _If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science?_

No one. He isn't "the man in science" - only a few computer geeks know about him. The man in science is Einstein.

I seriously doubt the man on the street could name anyone else, with the possible exception of "schizophrenic Russel Crowe".

<comment><USER16> Precisely. Would anyone argue that instead of Einstein Day, we should have Turing Day? No, the objection to that would be that for one thing they have very little in common, so why would one replace the other, and for the other part, why can't we have both an Einstein Day and a Turing Day? Both valid points. So why are women different, why is it the case that the only way Curie can become more prominent is if Lovelace takes a step back?

The choice of Turing as an example: He was a closer match to Lovelace in being a computer science pioneer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Agreed! Our school curriculum covered Marie Curie on multiple subjects: Chemistry and English (her biography made for inspirational reading) and by contrast, Lovelace has had what one would call "honourable mention" ;-)

I keep referring back to this topic more and more these days... <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiglers_law_of_eponymy>

<comment><USER19> Link shoud be to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy>

<comment><USER18> Thank you, kindly. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm astounded by the number of radioactive quack products still being manufactured currently:

<http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/quackcures.htm> (see the bottom of the page)

Most of them seem to originate in Japan.

</comment><comment><USER21> This woman is an inspiration. She fought great challenges to stand on equal ground with mental giants. I find her humbling and amazing.

</comment><comment><USER22> I had read about Lovelace in Doron Swade's works on Babbage, and for a long time was "that guy" who would come into CS love-ins and attempt to correct what I believed at the time were gross exaggerations of her contributions to the field. Eventually I learned to keep my mouth shut since it was usually met with hostility, and more importantly I'm not arrogant enough to think that what I had read by one author is going to be right.

The summary of Lovelace in the OP brought this back to mind as it is exactly what my stance had been when I'd ditched it for the more conservative "well I guess I don't really know". I never looked into it again until now. Does anyone have a recommendation for a balanced modern summary of her contribution?

I believe most of what I had read by Swade was written before she was as popular in the CS community as she now is, and when I raised his points in discussion I was usually told he was widely regarded to hold a grudge against her for some reason no-one really understood.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I was usually told he was widely regarded to hold a grudge against her for > some reason no-one really understood.

Who told you that?

For an independent (of Swade) analysis you might like to read Bruce Collier's 1970 PhD thesis (<http://robroy.dyndns.info/collier/index.html>). This was written well before Swade was on the Babbage case and was based on reading of the primary documents. A couple of quotes from it:

"In the summer of 1843, Menabrea's paper was translated by Ada Augusta, Countess of Lovelace, and only legitimate daughter of Lord Bryon; she composed, in extensive consultation with Babbage, a series of long notes to the paper, which together comprised about three times the length of Menabrea's original version. The whole was published in Richard Taylor's Scientific Memoirs for 1843, 92 under the title "Sketch of the Analytical Engine invented by Charles Babbage, Esq;" this was the only extensive paper on the Analytical Engine published in English during Babbage's life, or, indeed, up to the present. Although it is clear that Lady Lovelace was a woman of considerable interest and talent, and it is clear that she understood to a very considerable degree Babbage's ideas about the general character and significance of the Analytical Engine, and expressed them well in her notes to Menabrea's paper, it is equally clear that the ideas were indeed Babbage's and not hers; indeed, she never made any claim to the contrary. She made a considerable contribution to publicizing the Analytical Engine, but there is no evidence that she advanced the design or theory of it in anyway. And she did not even express an interest in learning about the machine until January 5, 1841, 93 even as late as June 30, 1843, she apparently knew quite little about the mechanical details of the Engine"

"All of this is said not to belittle Lady Lovelace, but because a very exaggerated view has been formed by some recent writers of the significance of her contribution to the Engine or of her role in Babbage's life."

The citations for those parts are Babbage's personal correspondence with Lovelace that are held by the British Museum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am currently in the middle of reading "The Emperor of All Maladies", a well written "history" of cancer, that puts what she did for the disease in perspective. Highly recommended: <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/books/11book.html>

</comment><comment><USER24> Somewhat related, I highly recommend the book _Radioactive_ , which is a very artfully done biography of Marie Curie:

<http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8968323-radioactive></comment>


Show HN: Covid Comply - ben-gy https://covidcomply.com.au <comment> ben-gy In Victoria, Australia the government announced a mandate for capturing contact details for all customers entering a variety of businesses reopening on June 1.

There weren't any solutions that made the user experience for everyone involved simple and a "just works" type experience so I spent a couple of weeks pulling this solution together.

I'd be keen to get feedback and ideas from the HN community about it, particularly for its applicability in other countries as I've not heard much about similar rules elsewhere except in New Zealand.</comment>


Rap genius founders looking for girls with swag. - <AUTHOR> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/rapgenius-guide-to-sex-and-dating

<comment><USER2> And I thought the social-proof's "Hot tech boy of the week" was stupid. But this is just really really stupid.

<comment><AUTHOR> My fiance works at cosmo and gave me the heads up that they were in the office. Was wondering how bad the interview would be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cosmo? Really? And on top of that, a post that's essentially a collective dating profile?

</comment><comment><USER4> These guys are what, John-Ralphio and Tom from Parks and Rec?</comment>


Upcoming changes/fixes to HTTP/2 support in the next Apache httpd release - <AUTHOR> https://icing.github.io/mod_h2/proxying.html <comment><USER2> > Since this only messed up CGIs on the same connection, it's not a security > risk. You cannot mess with CGIs from someone else.

What if you have another http proxy in front, such as cloudflare? Would this risk mixing multiple different end users' connections into one http/2 connection?</comment>


Empirical comparison of programming language productivity (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cis.udel.edu/~silber/470STUFF/article.pdf

<comment><USER2> Weirdly, when they get to the programmer productivity bit they decide to compare _reported_ times for the scripters and _measured_ times for the non- scripters. Then they go on to try to justify doing this.

Why didn't they just measure them all?

<comment><USER3> Agreed-- this puzzled me as well. I don't really doubt that the scripting languages are faster in terms of coding time but why not just measure them or at least have a 3rd party confirm the developer's time?

In any other study of workers, I'm pretty sure even the author would feel self-reported data would invalidate the results (especially when all of the "best" scores were self-reported).

e.g. _The ten chosen Honda dealerships reported that they can fix a Honda in 10-23 minutes compared to our measurements that Ford dealerships can fix a Ford in about an hour and a half._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You have to give this guy some credit for at least trying, but the standing problem with these types of studies is that there are just too many variables. For instance, this particular study only consisted of one program. Also, it doesn't really control for program proficiency very well...he tried, but environmental impacts are going to skew those results (classes taken, work environment and language of choice, sample set bias for the previous, etc). Also, as a previous poster mentioned, these are from 2000. Since 2000, Java has made serious performance ground. I would be interested to see a few more studies like this...even if they aren't perfect, they do tend to remind people that there is a huge difference for language productivity, and that it dwarfs performance.

Maybe we could get a version where the program was to implement a decent sized project requiring several developers, to emphasise the code quality angle? That would take a lot of bored programmers to do, though.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree with this. Reductionism is a poor choice for studying such things. About limits of reductionism: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#In_science>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> When you post old news, please add the date! This article is interesting, but much of it is obsolete given that the languages and their implementations have evolved quite a bit since 2000.

<comment><AUTHOR> Updated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article is from 2000 - it has absolutely not relevance to today's situation.

<comment><USER8> If the point of the article was to say "Hey, C's faster than Java!" that would be true. But that's not the point.</comment></comment>


The Most Iconic Short Stories in the English Language - <AUTHOR> https://lithub.com/43-of-the-most-iconic-short-stories-in-the-english-language/ <comment><USER2> I think if the Simpsons haven't done it, then it's not iconic.</comment>


Web Configurator - <AUTHOR> http://192.168.1.1/ <comment><USER2> If this is a joke, it's a pretty good joke.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really sorry about this. I've the IP for my DSL on the Chrome Bookmark bar next to News.YC bookmarklet.. then I loaned my laptop to a friend..</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Sold any support contracts for open source? - <AUTHOR> Does anyone have any experience selling support contracts for their open source projects?
I'm interested in understanding the shape (and pricing models) that these take. Specifically interested in solo developers or small teams, but I'd like to understand the market for larger company-backed support contracts too.
Also interested in hearing from customers - people who have bought this kind of support. <comment><USER2> A word of caution - there are big companies that always shop around for support contracts regularly, they always need 3 bids, before they justify re- upping with their current support contract. This is one reason we don't do support...

Large companies also do a lot of due diligence on support models. So there's a difference between Mongo Inc and the two freelancers .

I would suggest you think of your offering as a product, with a very clear value proposition for the service. Good reading on productized services [1]. What _exactly_ do I get for my support contract? Why is it going to make me awesome?

Your unfair advantage is being smaller and hungrier. Really think deeply about whether you're able to commit to offer a high-touch level of service, and demonstrate this at every interaction. Work really hard on building trust[2]

1 - [https://krit.com/blog/how-to-productize-your-consulting- busi...](https://krit.com/blog/how-to-productize-your-consulting-business)

2 - [https://trustedadvisor.com/books/the-trusted- advisor](https://trustedadvisor.com/books/the-trusted-advisor)

</comment><comment><USER3> +1</comment>


10k apart - <AUTHOR> http://10k.aneventapart.com/

<comment><USER2> Apparently 10K is the new 5K!

(in reference to the5k.org)</comment>


Coalfire Comments on Penetration Tests for Iowa Judicial Branch - ajay-d https://www.coalfire.com/News-and-Events/Press-Releases/Coalfire-Comments-on-Pen-Tests-for-Iowa-Judicial <comment><AUTHOR> Here's the scoping doc: [https://iowacourts.gov/static/media/cms/Rules_of_Engag_E9D80...](https://iowacourts.gov/static/media/cms/Rules_of_Engag_E9D807B3D13D3.pdf)

Some highlights include authorization to attempt entry by tail gating, lock picking, place devices once access has been gained, etc. It's a total vindication for Coalfire (IMO).

<comment><USER2> They specifically stated that this access would only be between 6AM and 6PM MST or "Normal Business hours". Not seeing anything that's allowing them outside of these hours.

<comment><USER3> "Expected to be" is not the same as "will only be", and that's the sort of thing that gets decided by a judge. (The existence of the additional charges language does weaken that argument a bit since if "expected to be" really was meaning that things could happen outside of those hours, then you wouldn't need to reference those MSA terms.)

IANAL, but have written more than my share of SOWs and contracts of this type. Drafters tend to always default to the position of greatest optionality for them. Hence, "expected to be".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is a legend from the time of my Uncle's tenure at the US DOJ. During the Clinton administration, he hired so-called hackers he met at DEF CON to conduct a pen test of an immigration processing center somewhere around New England. The hackers were given some form of "get out of jail free card" for use during the pen test. In spite of it, they were arrested anyway by the overzealous administrator of the center. My uncle's group in the DOJ had a hard time getting those hackers out of jail, and when they finally came out, they were quite mad, since the whole fiasco had put their permanent records at risk of a bad mark. The pen test project was still on, and it seems they went to extra lengths to exact their revenge on that overzealous administrator. As proof of their total compromise of the immigration processing center, the then Attorney General Janet Reno received in the mail from a green card for a Kang G. Roo. Subsequently, said administrator was demoted and reassigned to some cold desolate part of Alaska. (So the story goes, anyway.)

Edit: The "reassignment" may have led to an almost-immediate resignation.

<comment><USER5> sounds believable until the Alaska part

<comment><USER4> I have no idea what actually happened to the former administrator, but I'm told that this hyperbole is method for forcing Special Executive Service employees to resign. There are many hoops to jump through if the intent is to fire them, but part of being an SES includes not having much leeway when it comes to where you are assigned. So by forcing the person to work in some unwanted location, they tend to almost always submit their resignation instead. Where they were reassigned to I don't know for certain, but that's the tactic I'm told was used.

I suppose "forced to resign" might have been a more belivable way to end the story, but supposedly the mechanism by which that happens involves reassignment to some unwanted location.

<comment><USER6> The first EPA assessment of dioxins started under the Carter administration, but wasn't completed until the first or second year of the Reagan administration. The lead author ended up reassigned to a tiny branch office, and working in basically a broom closet. Or at least, that's what he said, when I tracked him down to ask questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article [1] seems to imply the reason for the arrest is a disagreement between the county sheriff's department and the state as to who has the authority to sign off on them attempting to break in to the building.

[1] [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and- court...](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and- courts/2019/09/18/iowa-courts-dallas-county-courthouse-coalfire-contract- judicial-branch-test-security-ia-crime-arrest/2356047001/)

<comment><USER8> Importantly, in this story it's confirmed that the pen testers were carrying documentation and phone numbers of people in the State department who could (and did) confirm their stories.

When this story first broke, there was speculation that, "this is why you carry a get out of jail free card." But if this story is true, the testers did everything right, and the deputy just decided to jail them anyway.

<comment><USER9> I know physical testers who will carry a fake "get out of jail free card" that lists their own people as the point-of-contact so they can highlight the lack of verification as a weakness. If it does get verified they have a "backup" real one.

It is possible they attempted this and the police were none too happy being lied to.

<comment><USER8> It's not possible in this case, unless the news source above is misreporting the story.

> "I advised them that this building belonged to the taxpayers of Dallas > County and the State had no authority to authorize a break-in of this > building," Leonard wrote in the email.

> Leonard wrote that he then called the state employee to tell him his > contractors had been arrested and that he didn't have the authority to > authorize this.

If Leonard had called their point-of-contact and it had been fake, it would be weird for him not to lead with that detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why is this still going on? It made sense before when there was a possibility of confusion, but at this point it is _at worst_ a mistake, not someone with intent to commit a crime. Are charges still being pressed?

<comment><USER11> The question here is not whether they were contracted to do the pen test, I think everyone agrees they were. The question is whether those who contracted them had the authority to authorize it.

If someone from craigslist give me a contract to break into a house to test their security system, but it turns out the owner of the house did not know about the contract, who is at fault for the break-in?

I do think that Coalfire acted in good faith here, but it is a complicated situation.

<comment><USER12> > The question here is not whether they were contracted to do the pen test, I > think everyone agrees they were. The question is whether those who > contracted them had the authority to authorize it.

No, the question is whether the prosecutor believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to be committing burglary. If not, the they have an ethical obligation to drop the prosecution.

<comment><USER11> You are correct, I didn't know burglary was a specific intent law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like yet another over-zealous prosecutor hell bent on putting non- violent [and non-criminals] behind bars.

<comment><USER14> Yep. Someone has his or her eye on a higher office.

<comment><USER15> Can you ELI5 why putting pentesters in prison would help a prosecutor get promoted to a higher office?

Wouldn't it just piss off (among others) the very people who have the authority to promote the prosecutor to a higher office?

<comment><USER16> Prosecutor gets to go trumpet a victory over those who would show such disresepect to the law as to try to break into the courthouse itself (or various press releases to similar effect).

The "very people who have the authority to promote the prosecutor" are the voters, who, for the most part, do not understand what pen-testing is, or that it exists, or that it is (or can be, when done correctly) a legitimate thing.

ELI5 A person is smart, people are stupid. Voters are people, and details get lost in campaigns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the many books on CIA training describes how they handle this. The CIA has written agreements with law enforcement in the areas where they do training exercises. Trainees are given a number to call. If they call it, someone from CIA HQ comes over, with, as one trainee put it, the "rumored but never seen get out of jail free letter".

This usually means the trainee failed the exercise.

</comment><comment><USER18> >> It's a total vindication for Coalfire (IMO)

But think about this from the perspective of the cops. The contract can get coalfire out of any liability for damage done to the building and any potential break and enter. That is consent between contracting parties. But an alarm was set off. The police were called. This isn't exactly a case of them filing a false police report, but the police were indeed called under false pretenses.

I used to work in a building with remote monitoring and extensive security, including armed response (military). We did these tests monthly. But as soon as the alarm was triggered, someone was on the phone to the military police. If their supervisor decided to roll the cars and test his officer's response time that was with his permission. We would never, ever, have insist that cops stop what they were doing, possibly something dangerous/real/important, and physically respond to our not-real security test.

<comment><USER19> Who cares about the cops? They don't have any role in prosecution.

"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Are these bot comments? Looks like a simple contractual misunderstanding, probably exasperated by a bureaucratic communication issue of some sort. I'm sure we'll discover that coalfire had ducks in a row and Iowa didn't know what they bought. Nobody communicated it and here we are.

<comment><USER21> It so far appears the county sheriff is behind this, insisting that the courthouse belongs to the county, and the state had to right to authorize this test.

<comment><USER22> Remember that Sherriffs are elected, they can have zero training related to the job. That alone can explain a lot of this. You might be surprised at recent efforts to politicize them as well.

[https://www.politicalresearch.org/2019/06/10/how-a-right- win...](https://www.politicalresearch.org/2019/06/10/how-a-right-wing-network- mobilized-sheriffs-departments)</comment></comment></comment>


How I Work, Part 1: Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://log.demaree.me/post/18318250240/how-i-work-part-1-ruby

<comment><USER2> _It's not that I find these "setup" posts to be a form of pornography. They are, and I do, but in this scenario I would be the porn star, not the lonely guy who looks for tips on productivity blogs in lieu of an actual life._

Nice way to discredit your reader even before the post starts.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback; that line has been rewritten in the published post to be less insulting.</comment></comment>


Go 1.14.2 and Go 1.13.10 are released - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/golang-announce/9UJN3gwMzhY/HVdQFNOVBgAJ <comment><USER2> Also updated: go with modification to support emitting warnings instead of errors when it encounters unused labels, variables, and imports (warnings do not stop compilation or production of the final binary):

[https://github.com/kstenerud/go](https://github.com/kstenerud/go)

</comment><comment><USER3> > go1.14.2 includes fixes to cgo, the go command, the runtime, os/exec, and > testing packages

Nothing interesting in these releases

<comment><USER4> There won't be any interesting thing anytime soon due to the strong belief in the "status quo" framed as "stability" in the Go community. The people in the community (thus outside google) like me that wanted (very minor) changes are long gone.

<comment><USER5> Can you give some examples of minor changes that were rejected outright? Just curious.

<comment><USER6> I'm not really involved in the Go community, but I've read a lot of arguments about it's lack of generics.

Here's a document I've found that summarizes the discussion- I thought it was a really interesting read given my lack of background in language design - [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vrAy9gMpMoS3uaVphB32uVXX...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vrAy9gMpMoS3uaVphB32uVXX4pi- HnNjkMEgyAHX4N4/edit)

<comment><USER7> I don't know if I'd qualify the addition of Generics as a "minor change"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best platform for blog+store+members area - <AUTHOR> I'm getting ready to build a site that will have a blog, store and members' area. Wondering what would be the best platform for it. Hoping the vast knowledge on HN can recommend me.
I've done WordPress and Drupal sites before so I know they would work. Not that I'm against PHP but I've been liking Python and Nodejs lately. But not sure there's a choice that will work for me, especially when it comes to easy hosting and easy maintenance compared to php solutions.
I've dabbled with Ghost (Nodejs blogging platform). Done a number of things with Python/Flask. Neither seems up to handling all three functions I want - blog, store, members' area. Maybe I should I go with Django?
Or should I go with a hosted solution like Shopify? I've been burned by nearly every 3rd party service I've ever relied on in the past (Flickr, Blogger, several others) by changes in TOS or complaints by competitors or grumpy visitors. So I'm more inclined to self host.
Thankful for any recommendations and discussion on this. <comment><USER2> Django. Shopify and etsy. Are good choices (also bootstrap and stripe payments)

For php Magento and Wordpress do exactly that (ecommerce and blog).

For blog there are also some nice "markdown static blog" software that are super ez.

<comment><AUTHOR> What about hosting options for Django? I've used Heroku for my Python/Flask apps and that works well. There's also Redhat Openshift which I haven't used but looks reasonable. Workflow is nice with updates pushed up via git.

Shopify Buy Button might be an option instead of hosting the entire site with them.

Etsy is an idea. Can you sell stuff that isn't handmade craft items? Downside is 3.5% transaction fee plus PayPal fee - expensive. It's all based on PayPal which for those of us who have been robbed by PayPal in the past makes it a nonstarter.

Not fond of Magento unless it has become a lot leaner. Really bogged down one of my previous projects.

<comment><USER2> Agree, havent tried etsy yet.

digital ocean vps</comment></comment></comment>


HTML5 Game Development - <AUTHOR> https://www.udacity.com/course/viewer#!/c-cs255/l-52473341/m-66255903

<comment><USER2> Won't let me use Internet Explorer...even to simply view lesson plans, attachments, and discussions....even though the browser supports all of the required features.

That's a bummer, because this defeats the anywhere/anytime nature of Udacity's system if I can't log in an do a quick lesson during a free lunch hour.

<comment><USER3> If you are using IE9 or above then you absolutely can browse the site and interact with classes (except game-dev of course, because IE9 does not support basic html5 technologies that it needs). Feel free to join our irc or post on the support forums if you think there is an issue with IE9 or above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really wish phone makers would take HTML5 seriously. Right now their JS engines are too slow for practical use. It would be really nice to finally have a build-once, deploy everywhere system

<comment><USER5> Me too. On the latest hardware, JS is a lot better than most people give it credit for, but it still has a long way to go. Unfortunately all the major players have incentives NOT to give us a viable, portable platform.

<comment><USER6> That's what annoys me the most.

Both Apple and Google have a disincentive to improving WebViews.

If both were JUST as apt as the platform's respective browsers, html5 apps would be SO much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hope Udacity sets up a portfolio of games created by students of this course. It would help support the efficacy of courses like this, and provide the students with more potential hiring opportunities than a completion certificate alone.

<comment><USER8> By the look of it the course will basically walk through the creation of a specific game rather than have students create their own.

<comment> MatiasPenas-_- At Udacity you learn making stuff.

Ex: the CS-101 is building a search engine from scratch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Decided to try the first few lessons and got a fun error:

> Expected 30 to be greater than 32.25806451612903.

They need to clarify the erroneous function call. (I was calling setInterval with 30ms instead of 1000/30)

<comment><USER10> Did you post on their forums, or decide it would suit you better to broadcast your issue to people who aren't in a position to fix it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> No Opera support. Sucks.

<comment><USER10> Serious question (no seriously!)...

Given that you will always have to deal with service providers not supporting your browser, why do you choose to continue using it?

Usually there is an idealogical reason for this sort of stance, but Opera isn't FOSS, and that's the only reason I can think of that someone would choose to put up with an inferior software experience.

Why not switch to Chrome or Firefox?

<comment><USER12> I was a long time Opera user. I _loved_ that browser. Everything is at your fingertips. You may spend half your day in your browser, so having everything one click away is great. And if it's not one click away, you can make it so. And if you don't like they way HN looks and behaves, you can change all of that easily (once you know how to). Heck, I even worked at Opera for five years because I loved it so much.

In the end, though, compatibilty issues led me to another browser. I miss much of the functionality, but browser support trumps that.

Opera is to browsers what vim is to text editors. Great if you know how to use it properly, but horrible in some very real and recurring situations.

<comment><USER13> How can you possibly compare Opera to vim heh?

I put a 70 year old dude on Opera to help prevent him from getting random malware. It took less than a minute to explain to a completely computer illiterate person that he has to click the red icon instead of the blue icon to "launch the internet".

Once it's open it's not very different from other browsers other than it having extremely useful features that most browsers end up adapting months or years later!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I had fun using it but got a server error when I got to the loading audio portion of the lesson. It said the answer was correct but to try again. Overall I like where they are going with this. I just started on the path of HTML5 game making a few months ago so hopefully this can fill in some holes I may have.

<comment><USER15> They have numerous Firefox problems, use Chrome for quizzes.

<comment><USER16> Even Chrome has issues. I've had one answer where it said I failed so I reloaded and it said I now passed. I changed nothing. In another case the tests failed when everything looked correct so I commented out one of the methods and then it said I passed... specifically passing the test that checked for the function that I had commented out! Seems like there is some flakiness with their system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there anything out there like this but less technical and more on game mechanics and genres?

<comment><USER18> How does this help you make a game? It seems to me that it would not be very helpful unless you could already make games.

Anyway: Coursera classes often use premises like this to motivate teaching some specific set of technical skills which are the real point.

<comment><USER17> If you can write JavaScript but have no working model for how to make an engaging game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Do they have a WebGL one, too?

<comment><USER20> CS291, interactive rendering (<https://www.udacity.com/course/cs291>), is WebGL based. The instructor is Eric Haines, one of the authors of Real-Time Rendering, so I'm guessing the course will be a solid intro to real-time graphics that goes beyond a how to use WebGL tutorial.

<comment><AUTHOR> The course should be interesting, it shall be teaching everything through Three.js.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Game Development without using WebGL seems like a waste of resources.

<comment><USER22> Don't tell that to the folks at www.scirra.com who make the program Construct2. Or the many companies that use Construct2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've found HTML5/JS games an interesting experience. I'm currently writing an online Pictionary-type game, like Draw My Thing, with HTML5, JS, and PHP. It's been pretty smooth.

<comment><USER24> "Draw My Thing" huh? Don't hold your breath on the Apple app store reviewers letting it into the app store. :)

<comment><USER23> This is for web browsers on a desktop, not iOS. Draw My Thing is just the name of something similar, from OMGPop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Previous discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5134618>

</comment><comment><USER26> hmmm. It says I don't have permission to access that course - what gives?

<comment><USER27> I experienced this too, but it's working for me now. Seems like a aggressive cookie / caching issue. Try clearing your cache, force-refresh, or logging out and then logging back in again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Looks great!

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm amazed to see people still doing browser detection (hint: other browsers actually do have the features you need, you just didn't think to put them in your list), and worse yet still outright blocking you when they mistakenly think your browser won't work. "We haven't tested your browser, continue at your own risk" is fine, "we won't let you look at this because we don't know your browser exists" isn't.

<comment><USER3> You will be able to easily continue into the site with an unsupported supported browser once some changes go live in the next day or two. Sorry for the current issues.

<comment><USER30> I'm sorry to. You lost me.

Every time I see a "your broser is not supported" message I'm getting more angry. As a developer it's your job to make things work!

Yes, I'm using Opera and yes Opera only supports the standard. But common I checked it in other browsers and I can't see what's so special about the site that a "modern" browser is needed.</comment></comment></comment>


Sharpest ever view of the Andromeda Galaxy (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/ <comment><USER2> Two things are amazing (to me) about this picture.

1) When you look up in the sky at the Andromeda Galaxy, your retina is absorbing photons that have been screaming through space for 2.5 million years. If you were on the Earth then, you'd be hanging out with Smilodon, the saber-toothed cat. For 2.5 million years, those photons were freely zooming through space and time, and when you see them, those photons are gone forever, their energy powering a chemical reaction in the rods and cones lining your retina that enables you to see them. _Those ancient photons_ were seen by _nobody else_ but you, and they literally become _a part of you_.

2) In about 3.75 billion years, the Andromeda Galaxy, currently zipping through space toward the Milky Way Galaxy at 110 km/s (nearly 70 miles per second, or about 250,000 MPH), will collide with and merge with our galactic home. It's unlikely anything would happen to the majority of planetary systems in either galaxy (there's a lot of empty space in there) -- but the night sky (not from Earth, we'd probably be cooked by the Sun by then) sure would be beautiful. And bright.

Scientists even proposed the name for the new galaxy: Milkomeda.

<comment><USER3> I was thinking a similiar thing last night when I read this news. What we observed through the Hubble telescope now about the Andromeda Galaxy happened 2.5 millions years ago. What is it actually doing right now? Is it still alive?

<comment><USER4> On an astrological scale isn't 2.5 million years a very, very short period of time?

<comment><USER5> Yes. Our own galactic 'year' is 250 million years (the time it takes to rotate in place once). So 2.5 million years is about a galactic day (or maybe a weekend).

<comment><USER3> Wow, I feel so small, physically and temporally!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the imagery released in January 2015. Though not brand new, this is an amazing image to contemplate, especially in light of the continued discoveries from Kepler.

Edit: Don't miss the link in the article to the slippy map zoomable version at [https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/](https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/)

<comment><USER7> Sorry if this is a dumb question (the article pretty much says it): when you zoom all of the way in, each dot is a star (or cluster of stars)?

<comment><USER8> Not really, but close. Picture is 1.5 billion pixels and features 100 million stars. So it's about one star per fifteen pixels.

<comment><USER9> 100 billion stars, not million. So on the order of 100 stars per pixel, although obviously not evenly distributed.

(Edited to add) The individual stars you can see when you zoom all the way in are the very brightest stars, mostly blue (O/B class) or red (K/M class) giants. For each star you can see, there are hundreds of smaller stars that you can't make out individually but contribute to the general background glow.

<comment><USER10> > 100 billion stars, not million

No, it's 100 million, as the article says.

> It is the biggest Hubble image ever released and shows over 100 million > stars and thousands of star clusters embedded in a section of the galaxy's > pancake-shaped disc stretching across over 40 000 light-years.

<comment><USER11> I think maybe the op meant the entire Andromeda galaxy is estimated to have 200-400 billion stars (source Wikipedia)

<comment><USER12> Actually, Wikipedia says the number of stars is estimated at 10^12 (a trillion).

<comment><USER13> (And whoever guesses the closest gets the whole jar!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm having a hard time understanding this picture along with what I understand of the scale of space. The Andromeda Galaxy is big, and it has a lot of stars. Which is to say, it's REALLY big, and it merely has a bunch of stars, so the size of the stars should be very small compared to the empty space between the stars, even if you are looking through the galaxy. I would assume that if you get a better and better image, you'll be seeing the holes better just like you'll see the stars better. Kind of a fractal effect: when you look closer, you see the same kind of density but at different scales.

But if I zoom into this image it just feels like I'm seeing a mush of speckled light. What's up with that? How much of the image is an artifact of the telescope?

<comment><USER15> Not an astronomer, but I'll give it a shot.

If you do the zoom thing, at the highest level? Yes, it's a mush of speckled light -- looks a lot like a noisy or grainy RGB image.

But what I _think_ you're seeing are the actual stars -- thousands or maybe ten thousands of them in a full screen at the highest zoom. They're all clumped together because you're looking cross-wise at the galaxy, through the disc. So there so many stars at the highest level of zoom that the image looks grainy.

<comment><USER16> As a somewhat astronomer, this explanation seems reasonable.

Usually you can't discern individual stars in another galaxy, like in the center of the Andromeda galaxy (But doing statistics is still possible). However, the Andromeda galaxy seems close enough that at the outer edge of it, you can isolate them to do astronomy on individual stars (like spectroscopy).

Edit: Also, you can find stars in almost all colors. The average of the colors depends on the age of the stars in the galaxy. If there are only a few new stars born, the galaxy will appear redder. If there are many new stars born, it appears bluer (see Hertzsprung-Russel diagram). The way the stars appear in different colors means that they have different ages and masses.

Noise in a telescope (except for high energy particles hitting your detector) is thermal noise. It will only appear if there's almost no light detected. So if it were noise, it should be the other way round: Noisy where there are little stars and no noise where there are a lot of stars. If you'd ask me, I'd say there's exactly zero visible noise in there.

<comment><USER17> As a former astronomer, this is correct. Even in extremely high resolution images each pixel contains many, many stars. This fact has actually been used to determine the distances to galaxies. The basic idea is that if the galaxy is nearby, then there will be fewer stars per pixel (say, only a few dozen), but if the galaxy is very far away, there will be many thousands of stars per pixel. As a result, if the galaxy is nearby, there will be a lot of variation in brightness from pixel to pixel because the Poisson fluctuations are proportionally much larger. If the galaxy is more distant, the brightness at each pixel will be more homogenous. This is called the surface brightness fluctuation technique.

There's a nice page about it here: [https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Jacoby/Jacoby9_1.html](https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Jacoby/Jacoby9_1.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was wondering why every star showed a pair of perpendicular lines radiating out. Apparently they are artifacts of the telescope's construction, and are called "diffraction spikes" [1].

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

<comment><USER19> There is a nice Minute Earth video about this, for those who want a quick and entertaining way to get the concept: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVAKFJ8VVp4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVAKFJ8VVp4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It recently struck me, that if Andromeda would be visible to the naked eye, it would be huge on the night sky:

[http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-incredibly-huge-size-of- androm...](http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-incredibly-huge-size-of- andromeda-1493036499)

<comment><USER11> It is visible to the naked eye. It looks more like a cloud and doesn't have as large of an apparent diameter though.

<comment><USER21> I think the center is faintly visible. Doubt you can make out the whole thing.

<comment><USER22> Correct. Only the core is visible to the naked eye, and even then you'd have to be out in the boondocks, far from cities and other light polluters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've had this image downloaded at full res for over a year now, and I love to project this at actual size onto my wall (with some good, mysterious mood music). Makes a really neat effect and is fascinating to look at once you realize what you're gazing upon. It's even a good conversation starter. (I'm fun at parties...)

Just scrolling the image around in Preview makes my Mac slow to a crawl.

<comment><USER24> "...I love to project this at actual size onto my wall ..."

you have a 40,000 light year wall in your house?

<comment><USER23> I meant that the image is not zoomed out and it pans across the width and height of the image on the wall. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If you like this you might also enjoy this [1] 46 billion pixel image of our own galaxy (sadly not as sharp as the andromeda one). Taken from a link [2] I posted a while back.

[1] [http://gds.astro.rub.de/](http://gds.astro.rub.de/)

[2] [http://aktuell.ruhr-uni- bochum.de/pm2015/pm00143.html.en](http://aktuell.ruhr-uni- bochum.de/pm2015/pm00143.html.en)

</comment><comment><USER26> I've enjoyed this video exploration of the image:

Gigapixels of Andromeda: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU)

</comment><comment><USER27> Beautiful. Whenever I see images like this of "big things" in space I'm reminded how meaningless our short existence on this little rock is from a universal perspective. My big takeaway is always to try to find personal meaning in ones life. Either in work, or family, hobbies, etc.

<comment><USER28> It's taken 15 billion years since the big bang for our relatively complex atoms to form - from supernovae. Yes, we were generated in the core of stars. The entire superstructure of the universe is what allows us to exist in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is an ignorant question, but when you zoom in full, is every light dot a star? Or is it noise, like you get with a poorly lighted photo?

<comment><USER30> At 100% zoom you will see that they have different sizes. Noise has usually the same size (the size of one pixel on the sensor, if not using bayer filtering).

Then you take a look at the XDF[1], showing ~5500 galaxies like this one in a tiny angular diameter, and you realize how big the Universe is.

[1] [http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/im...](http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/a/)

<comment><USER31> It's cool hey! That image covers the same area as approximately four full moons, 2.3 arcminutes by 2 arcminutes. [1]

So, back of the envelope calculation multiplying 5500 by the area of the full sky (as though the earth were invisible) we get ~242 billion galaxies, which is close to what this[2] claims at 100 to 200 billion galaxies.

Space is _big_.

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

2\. [http://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the- univ...](http://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the- universe.html)

<comment><USER32> The moon is about 30 arcminutes across (half a degree) [0], which is considerably larger than the area of the Extreme Deep Field. But the estimate of the number of galaxies is okay.

The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (of which the Extreme Deep Field is a part) is one thirteen-millionth part of the full sky. [1]

The full sky is about 41,253 square degrees in size. [2]

I think the HXDF is one 32-millionth of the full sky. If so, multiplying 32 million by the 5500 galaxies in the XDF gives on the order of 200 billion galaxies, as you said.

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

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra- Deep_Field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field)

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

<comment><USER31> Yes, you're right, thanks for the correction: the Extreme Deep Field image is smaller than the moon. I neglected to click on the image at [1], thereby missing the detail in the full size image[2].

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_eXtreme_Deep_Field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_eXtreme_Deep_Field) 2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_eXtreme_Deep_Field#/med...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_eXtreme_Deep_Field#/media/File:XDF- scale.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Using the zoom tool recommended in the article really provides perspective. Especially when you see those stars clustered close together when each of them are really millions of miles apart (aside from the binaries) with possible planets orbiting them. Now consider the billions of galaxies out there. I'm positive there's an Alien or two there as well.

<comment><USER34> You're off by an order of magnitude.

Stars are often trillions of miles apart. Binaries can be so close they touch or as far apart as 100 billion miles.

As for the aliens, there are good arguments for and against their existence. The numerical argument is not, by itself, very convincing. It's like thinking you will win the lotto because you have a million tickets, but not knowing how many balls are drawn and how many numbers are on the balls. You may be guaranteed to win, or your odds may be effectively zero.

<comment><USER33> I suppose my mistake made it an order of magnitude more amazing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Link to full resolution downloads: [http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2015002a/titles...](http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2015002a/titles/true/hires/true/)

<comment><USER36> Original size: A mere 4.3 GB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Another really great picture taken by Hubble is the eXtreme Deep Field. As wiki puts it: _Except for a few stars, every speck of light is an entire galaxy – some of these are as old as 13.2 billion years_

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

I occasionally use that image as my desktop. It reminds me of how insignificant we really are.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm not an astronomer as evidenced by this question:

What's the bright glowing light that's partially cropped in the lower left of the image? Is that a large star cluster? Or a single star? Or something else?

<comment><USER39> Yes it's a large cluster of stars. At the very center of the galaxy you will also find a supermassive black hole.

<comment><USER40> Is there a name for that super massive black hole? (serious question) Just curious to learn more.

<comment><USER2> I don't believe they've ever named it; it is indeed "supermassive" (around 2.3 billion of our suns).

The supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way is called Sagittarius A* ("Sagittarius A-Star"), the only named supermassive black hole I could find in any reports.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> the image is lovely. the zoom tool is missing a feature to link at specific places - like, there's a galaxy visible trough the background at a certain place, but you cannot share it

also it's surprisingly detailed and noisy, where usually it's an either or. It makes me suspect the noise it's actual stuff absorbing/emitting radiation, but I have no idea what's the interference to be expected from dust or if those dots and speckles are all actual stars - anyone has a link with some explanation of what we're looking at?

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "pancake-shaped disk" is not only redundant (because all disks are pancake-shaped) but backwards (since actually it's pancakes that are disk-shaped - pancakes are a special case of disks, which are really cylinders).

Sorry, this is more fun for me than marveling at the photo. It is pretty cool though.

</comment><comment><USER43> Does anyone know why those patterns [1] appear when you zoom in like 10 steps or so? Are those stitches or some artifacts of the sensor?

[1] [http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/](http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/)

<comment><USER44> Not sure what patterns you're referring to. Also not sure how big a "step" is - zooming is continuous for me. Might check other browsers (I'm using Chrome)? Or link a screenshot?

<comment><USER45> I guess he refers to clicking the + button ten times. I'm using Chrome for Android myself.

<comment><USER34> He may be referring to that, but there doesn't seem to be a per-click zoom amount. It zooms further the longer you hold a click and seems very sensitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> My god, it's full of stars!

</comment><comment><USER47> This is extremely cool. I remember going to the observatory as a kid and looking at Andromeda through the telescopes. It's amazing to think we will be one with that galaxy someday, millions of years from now

</comment><comment><USER48> "the full image [...] has 1.5 billion pixels. You would need more than 600 HD television screens to display the whole image."

True, but not accurate ?

1'500'000'000 / (1980 * 1024) ≈ 739.8 :)

<comment><USER49> That should be:

1'500'000'000 / (1920 * 1080) ≈ 723.38

Anyway, as you wouldn't want to crop the image you're showing, a more suitable formula would be:

N = ceil(image width / 1920) * ceil(image height / 1080)

Edit: width = 69536, height = 22230 so N = 37*21 = 777

<comment><USER50> I'd love to see this done with ~200 4k screens ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Wait? That's not digital noise? Those are actual stars?

</comment><comment><USER52> It's interesting how uniform Andromeda is. Not much in the way of arms.

Also I'm impressed with the resolution available, you can really zoom in an incredible amount.

</comment><comment><USER53> It would be nice if they could filter out the intervening objects that are in our own galaxy, to give a clearer perspective.

</comment><comment><USER11> Fun fact: Andromeda is the only object outside of the local Milky Way group that can be seen with the naked eye.

<comment><USER53> M33 in Triangulum is comfortably visible with the naked eye from dark skies. A few other galaxies have been claimed to have been spotted with the naked eye, although I've never been able to see any of these.

Also, the 'local group' actually includes M31 and M33 in addition to our galaxy and many smaller ones.

<comment><USER11> You are right. Should have fact checked that before posting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> What is so bright on the left side -- what looks like the center of the galaxy?

<comment><USER55> A lot of stars cluster around the supermassive black holes in the center of every galaxy. Also, depending on the area of the spectrum they were examining, a lof X-rays are found there too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Hmm, expanding zoom tool across three 4k monitors crashes chrome.

</comment><comment><USER57> They sadly don't have background pics for 4K screens.

</comment><comment><USER58> is there anything of statistical or other cosmological analytics merit here or is this just for enjoyment?

</comment><comment><USER59> mind well and truly blown</comment>


University of Illinois lists unpaid FTE adjunct lecturer position - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/al_pastor_tacos/status/1107855784761872384 <comment><USER2> The practice of offering zero-hours contracts for university lecturing has been very controversial in the UK[1] and other parts of Europe. I think they short-change the students and the lecturers, and represent a long-term risk to the institutions who use them.

[1] [https://theconversation.com/zero-hour-contracts-are- turning-...](https://theconversation.com/zero-hour-contracts-are-turning- university-lecturers-off-the-job-74949)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wrong. The listing is an invitation to join a pool of potential instructors. If you're selected to teach, you of course get paid.</comment>


Former Digg CEO Jay Adelson and the confessions of a start-up addict - <AUTHOR> http://www.siliconbeat.com/2010/10/26/former-digg-ceo-jay-adelson-and-the-confessions-of-a-start-up-addict/ <comment><USER2> Watched the videos, very interesting to see some of the stumbles along the way. I realize at this point there is probably regret not selling earlier, although it was a tough sell considering the amount of capital invested and what the investors wanted in terms of a return. After the layoffs though, it's possible Digg could still be around for a while.

EDIT: Although Jay makes a good point that even though there were "offers", that doesn't mean there is anything set in stone that they could have picked up if they really wanted to sell.</comment>


Significant Indentation in Lisp - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/comp.lang.lisp/g2K3bDeWTdg/oDgUweuypcoJ

<comment><AUTHOR> I will use significant whitespace for several important reasons for the programming language of my current project, and came across the referenced newsgroup discussion. Didn't think that this topic would be so huge :-) Even people like Peter Norvig participate in the discussion.</comment>