AngularJS project structure - <AUTHOR> http://www.davecooper.org/angular-project-structure <comment><USER2> As far as I know this is a solved problem. I used this guide when starting out with angular. Helped a lot to start and keep everything organized.

[https://github.com/johnpapa/angular- styleguide/blob/master/a...](https://github.com/johnpapa/angular- styleguide/blob/master/a1/README.md#application-structure-lift-principle)

<comment><USER3> We've adopted this style guide at my work-place. I created a few AngularJS apps before running into this great resource and every thing it proposes matches my experiences and intuition from poking and prodding the library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >Enter problem two. What happens when my project has heaps of controllers/services etc… I now have directories that could have a lot of files and none of them are particularly easy to find.

My team uses Angular 1.4.7 for a very large project (hundreds of JS files, dozens of views/controllers/services). We have in our JS folder a services folder, controllers, directives, etc. No subfolders except in our directives folder which has some directives which are only applicable to a specific area of the application. Services by convention are just the name of the topic at hand, no "service" suffix (i.e. alert.js, user.js). We have had no issues as far as file navigation goes. I grant that convenience to our development environment. We run a primarily .NET stack and leverage Visual Studio 2015 so the "CTRL + comma" keyboard shortcut makes it very easy to work with these relatively large folders. My main point being I think the development environment plays a very large role in whether structure A or structure B will be more optimal for your team. If a CLI were going to be our means of navigation, this structure would be much more challenging to work with and I don't have a good suggestion for that circumstance.

<comment><USER5> CTRL + what?

<comment><USER4> What user crabl said. Edited for clarity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "AngularJS for the front end allows someone who sucks at front end work to be able to produce some pretty useful interfaces". That's actually a nice way to explain its success, for better and for worst. Spot on, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER7> Both in our Angular and React codebases, we group things by functionality. Ideally, we should be able to take a folder (and its subfolders) and make them a separate npm-package. In the past, we have actually done so successfully, and can share and reuse these modules through our internal npm (Nexus).

</comment><comment><USER8> In all our new projects we've started using redux with a smart + dumb component architecture and have had some great success. Redux makes keeping track of everything that's going on in large apps much easier. It also allows for only needing a few "smart" / container components that actually know about redux and global application state that then pass down only what's needed to simpler / "dumb" components. We like this approach so much we've even built out various starter projects. Link to angular 2 project: [https://github.com/rangle/angular2-redux- starter](https://github.com/rangle/angular2-redux-starter) Link to angular 1 project: [https://github.com/rangle/angular-redux- starter](https://github.com/rangle/angular-redux-starter)

<comment><USER9> I go a minor step further, and pull out the components/actions/reducer by feature... additionally I'll separate out api into a separate file, for interactions with outside pieces (cors/xhr, etc), this way action creators don't have the logic for xhr requests (fetch or axios), and it's pretty clean... I use redux-thunk and redux-actions too.

Even for angular, it's a pretty nice workflow... I really don't care as much for angular as react. When the workflow is mostly the same, the quirkiness of angular (1 & 2) just stand out more imho.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tend to favor organizing by feature...

        /feature/subfeature/(constants|actions|reducers|api|controls)

This way features can be N layers deep, a given feature may not have all of those pieces, some may be data only, some may have actions that are called from other features... in the end, the data/controls etc are closer to the feature that binds them. Api is to abstract any foreign system integration (api calls), where actions (action creators) may use it, and the reducers manage the result... Redux workflow, variance on structure.

Tends to work pretty well that way. Actions/reducers may listen/dispatch those defined under other features... again, it's the shape of the data and application that defines these features and their structure.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't it redundant to prefix have a file in the foo directory called foo.controller.js ?

I sense a weakness in someone's editor/IDE. Personally I'd call it controller.js and expect my tools to not make that problemmatic

<comment><USER11> foo.controller.js

foo.service.js

foo.directive.js

would all be in different folders, one for controllers, one for services one for directives etc. if you have multiple tabs open in your ide like Webstorm you'd only see foo.js three times over, if you did not prefix it, and be hard pressed to know which is which at first glance.

With that said Angular 1 is dead long live Angular 2 :)

<comment><USER12> Why would I use Angular 2 instead of React?

I hope "somebody" forks Angular 1. The 2 way binding (ng-model) makes CRUD apps very simple to write, even if digest/watch type operations are somewhat slow. As far as I can tell, the ng-model feature is OUT of Angular 2, and some kind of React style event communication must be set up instead.

I don't know React yet, but Angular 2 sounds like they are chasing the same design goals: be efficient at gluing huge mounds of similar crap to a never ending page (e.g. - a la Facebook). I am more interested in quickly grinding out code for huge CRUD forms with a large number of distinct fields.

<comment><USER11> Yes both are ways to deal with single page applications...

2 way data-binding is still in Angular2, as well as oneWay Binding to the input and one way binding from output. I've heard others make the claim ng- model and 2 way binding are gone, which is wrong. [https://egghead.io/lessons/angular-2-using-ng-model-for- two-...](https://egghead.io/lessons/angular-2-using-ng-model-for-two-way- binding)

There are giant performance benefits on the horizon with Angular2 in terms of server side rendering with Angular Universal and state management with ngrx/store.

In Angular2 http is handled as an observable, no longer a promise, so there is a difference in syntax but that falls in line with ES7 format

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the update. As far as I could piece together (admittedly dubious connections), ngModel was re-implemented in the Jan 2016 release of Angular 2??? ("Angular 2.0.1 beta" from a Stack Overflow discussion assumed to mean 2.0.0-beta.1 on [https://code.angularjs.org/](https://code.angularjs.org/))

Sounds like somebody beat some sense into the Angular 2 team - "don't remove the single feature that differentiates your library and makes prototyping an app easy"

Now if I can only find examples in good old Javascript, instead of fugly, Java-esque, Typescript.

Re: types/Typescript - loved this quote:

"Better type-checks interestingly found only just a few bugs"

[https://jaxenter.com/angularjs-interview- angular-2-typescrip...](https://jaxenter.com/angularjs-interview- angular-2-typescript-and-a-release-date-123674.html)

Rant for another day: insisting on static typing, but ignoring the mayhem caused by operators and operator precedence (to say nothing of user created operators)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm working on an Angular app with a Java backend, so much of the directory structure is dictated by Maven. Also, for what it's worth, we don't have a "single page app" (with multiple controllers or whatever). We have a "small number of pages app". This allows for limiting the scope of what is done in each page a bit. Also, while we are not constantly reloading pages like the legacy app this replaces, we occasionally load a new page, which hopefully deals with any resource leaks our imperfect code may have had.

That said, within the source directory for client side web files, we have the following:

* html/ \- app pages (a small number of files) are within this directory.

\-- html/help/ \- sundry help pages put together by analysts are stored here.

* css/ \- probably overkill, but the main css file is here, and, so far, an alternate "skin" for a subsystem of the app.

* js/ \- empty in the source, but we do concatenate js files and place them in this spot in the final deployment package (.war file)

\-- js/lib/ \- 3rd party library scripts (e.g. - jQuery, Angular, moment, Ramda ...)

\-- js/<<app name>>/ \- in house scripts. There is a (short-ish) controller script for each page, and perhaps 6 to 10 shared utility scripts. The utility scripts tend to be somewhat long, rather than having hundreds of files, which really bothers me. E.g. - "tags.js" has the directives ("tag libraries", although there are a few custom attributes as well); rest.js is a wrapper around $http and some error / message handling code that does communication with the server.

I can't stand the directory structure, which I attribute to JEE historically, that has hundreds (thousands?) of files, and grossly redundant "MaryHartman/MaryHartman" / "Smurf" / "Bat" naming style (directory bat contains BatMobile.src; BatPhone.src; BatBelt.src; BatShit.src and so on)

Also, much of what is in the utility files are just single functions (within a namespace object), rather than classes. Currying goes a long way to inject dependencies into a chunk of code, rather than making a bunch of one-trick- pony (single action method) classes.

<comment><USER12> See #21 - [http://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming- jargon/](http://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming-jargon/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > I've been programming professionally for about 6-7 years now

This is an odd statement to me. If you are in tech, do you count how many years you've been programming professionally?

I can't, and honestly I don't know if I'm programming professionally in my daily job.

<comment><USER14> Perhaps you're just trying to make a joke - but what's so odd about it? He means that he's been paid to do it for 6-7 years, and suggests that he was doing it unpaid (hobby, school) for longer.</comment></comment>


We can make primality machines that do not know anything about the factors of n - <AUTHOR> https://mathlesstraveled.com/2018/01/03/a-tale-of-three-machines/ <comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure I've read[1] that primality machines in normal computers rely on a _heuristic_ to determine whether the factors produced are very, very likely to be prime, and that security focussed organisations subsequently use large amounts of computation (on the order of several days on a supercomputer) to verify that the factors are, in fact, prime. Or is there a class of super fast algorithms which _guarantee_ primality as the author implies?

[1] Citation needed. This was years ago :/

<comment><USER3> There is AKS[1], which is deterministic and polynomial time. The most common need for a primality test is the generation of RSA keys, where a mistake will result in a key that almost certainly doesn't work (I.e. you can't decrypt encrypted data even if you have the correct half of the key). For these cases a faster probabilistic test is still the most popular.

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

<comment><USER4> From what I've read in the past (and this is borne out by the article you've linked), you wouldn't necessarily use AKS if you need determinism, because there are other deterministic algorithms with worse asymptotics that perform better on smaller inputs. Has this changed in the last several years?

From Wikipedia

> While the algorithm is of immense theoretical importance, it is not used in > practice. For 64-bit inputs, the Baillie–PSW primality test is deterministic > and runs many orders of magnitude faster. For larger inputs, the performance > of the (also unconditionally correct) ECPP and APR tests is far superior to > AKS. Additionally, ECPP can output a primality certificate that allows > independent and rapid verification of the results, which is not possible > with the AKS algorithm.

<comment><USER5> You are correct.

AKS (v6, Voloch, or Bernstein) is O(log^6(n)) with large constants. A nice polynomial but both large constants and a larger exponent than we'd like.

APR-CL is O(log^K(n)) where K = C*log(log(log(n))), which means for practical purposes it's in the range 3-5, hence has a lower exponent than AKS. As n goes to infinity it does finally exceed AKS, but at that point n is so large as to not be practically computable.

ECPP is conjectured O(log^5(n)) or O(log^4(n)) depending on algorithm used. Both Primo and ecpp-dj implementations show O(log^4(n)) growth though the latter doesn't scale well past 1000 digits due to a limited polynomial dictionary. Primo scales very well and has generated results for primes over 30k digits -- much larger than the others. I expect Pari/GP's ECPP implementation to eventually compete nicely when it's ready.

Miller-Rabin and BPSW are both O(log^(2+c)(n)), where c is between 0 and 1 depending on the multiplication method, so exponent 2 to 3. But of course these are probabilistic.

To my knowledge this has not changed recently. There haven't been substantial improvements to AKS since Bernstein's 2003 paper, which still results in an exponent of 6, though lowers the constant factors by many orders of magnitude. In 2006, Bernstein published a randomized version of AKS which runs in O(log^4(n)). So the same exponent as ECPP but also having the same "downside" of using randomization, and Bernstein notes that it was still slower than ECPP.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hacking each others Apps / Websites? - <AUTHOR>

Inspired by Google's Vulnerability Reward Program, I have been getting more and more interested in security and ensuring that my applications aren't open to attack.
I have a feeling that there are a lot of easy wins that many new websites, applications and startups forget about in the rush to launch..
I thought it would be fun to have a group of trusted people that get together (probably virtually on skype?) and try and poke holes in each others applications to find CSRF / CS Scripting / SQL Injection and other common vulnerabilities for the benefit of all.
I am just putting this out there to gauge the interest before organising anything... <comment><USER2> It is a great idea - probably a startup in here somewhere where you pay a bounty to get your site "crowdhacked" and thus improve your security.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great Post. I was just asking a friend a couple weeks back if he could hack my new startup website.</comment>


IBM's monthly puzzle challenge - <AUTHOR> http://domino.research.ibm.com/Comm/wwwr_ponder.nsf/pages/index.html

<comment><USER2> I've been staring at the first problem from May '98\. I understand the solution, but I still don't understand how it's possible.

<comment> alok-g It's because theta is so small. Considering a right triangle of height h and a much longer base, h must be quite large for the hypotenuse to be 6 m longer than the base. Below is a simple example:

base 1000 hypotenuse 1006 height 109.7087052

Right triangle here is of course an approximation to the original problem, just to demonstrate what is going on.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hubot script to keep track of links posted in Slack - <AUTHOR> https://www.npmjs.com/package/hubot-slack-link-manager <comment><AUTHOR> This is my first NPM package, so let me know if I did anything wrong ^_^</comment>


May 28, 1959: Inventing a New Language - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/05/0528cobol-conference

<comment><USER2> 51 years and still going strong, with a modern web application framework: <http://www.coboloncogs.org/> .</comment>


ESA to consider joining Gateway Moon project - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/22/the-lunary-gateway-the-future-is-closer-than-you-thought-nasa-esa-orion-jaxa-mars-mission <comment><USER2> > If ministers give the go-ahead, the European Space Agency (Esa) – of which > Britain is a key member – would then join other international partners that > Nasa is recruiting to its Gateway project. These include the space agencies > of Russia, Canada and Japan.

According to [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.interfax.ru%2Frussia%2F630215&edit- text=&act=url) , Russian space agency participation is not assured.</comment>


Why a New Generation of On-Demand Businesses Rejected the Uber Model - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3058299/why-a-new-generation-of-on-demand-businesses-rejected-the-uber-model <comment><USER2> As the co-founder of an on-demand service company [1], I have to agree partly with the core argument about trust, but disagree with its conclusion about the model's viability. It is definitely hard to ensure trust and satisfaction among customers without owning the entire process end-to-end. At our (currently small) scale, we manage this by offering fanatical customer service and communicating aggressively with our service providers. However, only time will tell if this will scale. I think there is a middle ground between a company shrugging it's shoulders and forcing the responsibility of vetting onto its customers, and completely guaranteeing quality. For instance, we add a layer of reviews that otherwise can be hard to find for tax preparers, stringently vet service providers, and also add a layer of customer protection by not charging them until they are satisfied. The article makes it seem as if the on-demand model implies no responsibility for quality by the company.

It seems that the real issue is that on-demand companies that charge a premium to "traditional" alternatives have a hard time justifying that premium if all they provide is a thin tech layer on top of said services. Uber is not only more convenient, but also now cheaper in many cases than taxis. I still think (albeit with strong bias) that if you can offer convenience AND cost savings, there is a legitimate value for the on-demand model.

[1] Taxaroo, [https://www.taxaroo.com](https://www.taxaroo.com)

<comment><USER3> The real problem is can you run your service with the quality of labor you will get as you scale. The reason you can offer fanatical customer service is your people are better than the average in the industry. It is very hard to scale labor quality.

<comment><USER2> That's a fair point, but it's so far down the road that for the foreseeable future it won't be a problem (at least for us). We're not under VC-backed pressure to grow at some unsustainable pace, so we can choose to bring on service providers at a pace that allows us to maintain quality. This definitely is a problem for the large on-demand companies out there, but that itself is part of a bigger problem where every startup thinks they need to be a billion dollar company (for many reasons)

<comment><USER3> The pressure to be a billion dollar company comes from the need for the investors to get a return on their money.

Rapid growth and quality are not normally compatible. I am glad to hear you have the freedom to grow at the right pace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The real problem with the "Uber for X" comparison is that most of these startups are just "delivery for X." Uber's core business isn't delivery. The economics on both the supply and demand side are very different for Uber than, say, an Instacart or Postmates.

<comment><USER5> Precisely. Uber created a new market by enabling people who need rides to connect efficiently with people who can supply them. Uber works because personal automobiles are typically underutilized and cab services in many locations are awful.

<comment><USER6> This is what Hailo did [https://www.hailoapp.com/](https://www.hailoapp.com/) connected existing cab drivers with customers and skipping the cab company middle man, and it's a win-win for everybody (customer, cabby, hailo) but the inneficient middle-man.

Uber did more than this, it also created a new pool of "people who can supply" by hiring their own drivers with less stringent quality screening than is in many localities for standard cabs, and then charging more or less the same price for this lower quality product.

In the Uber case it's a win for Uber certainly, but whether it works for customers really depends on the level of quality customers expect in a local market. Established local drivers lose out.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, I unaware of Hailo. It sounds like what I was hoping services like Uber would actually be.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Introduction to the Emacs Editor (1978) - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20110723033542/http%3A//www.burlingtontelecom.net/~ashawley/gnu/emacs/doc/emacs-1978.html <comment><USER2> I found this excerpt from section 1 a very telling indicator of how times have changed since 1978:

"This memo is aimed at users unfamiliar not only with the Emacs editor, but also with the ITS operating system. ... Emacs runs on the ITS machines, AI, ML, MC, and DM. For people coming from an Arpanet TIP, the host numbers are: 134 (AI), 198 (ML), 236 (MC), and 70 (DM). If you don't have a regular username there, ... (use) the WHOIS program: :WHOIS XYZ. If WHOIS didn't find any regular user XYZ, you can use that name. :LOGIN XYZ. You are now talking to DDT, the top-level, monitor program ..."

A TIP was an Arpanet Terminal Interfact Processor. Each TIP had a telephone number known to Arpanet users, who could dial in to any TIP then connect to any Arpanet host. I recall there was no authentication at the TIP, each host was supposed to handle its own authentication.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Saw this on lobster.rs and noticed it hadn't been cross-posted.

[https://lobste.rs/s/3eea4k/introduction_emacs_editor_1978](https://lobste.rs/s/3eea4k/introduction_emacs_editor_1978)</comment>


Placebo buttons: 'door-close' buttons, others, don't do anything - <AUTHOR> http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/11/08/1521226/The-Placebo-Effect-Not-Just-On-Drugs <comment><USER2> " 'In most elevators installed since the early 1990s, the 'close door' button has no effect. Otis Elevator engineers confirmed the fact to the Wall Street Journal in 2003. "

Interesting. In a previous career I worked at a hotel and had, as part of my job, a "fireman's service" key. Very handy thing.

Elevator banks in NYC offices and hotels have a key slot that, when activated, pulls all the elevators to the lobby. You're supposed to only do this in an emergency, such as a fire.

While the elevators are set to fireman's service, the same key (well, a duplicate, if yours is the one that was used to pull the elevators) is used inside an elevator to control it.

While on fireman's service the doors will not open unless you press the "open" button. If you take the car to a fire floor you really don't want the doors opening on their own.

You have to press and hold the "open" button until they are fully open; also handy in case you start to open the doors and start inhaling smoke.

Likewise, once open, the doors don't close unless you press and hold the "close" button.

I'm pretty sure that once you closed the doors the car automatically returned to the lobby.

Bottom line is, not every control you see on some equipment or machine is meant for everyone to use.

<comment><USER3> One of the huge reasons for manual door control in fires is that the IR sensor to detect if something is blocking the door can't tell the difference between a person and smoke. Door opens up on a burning floor, smoke pours in, door refuses to shut, everyone gets stuck and dies.

To the non-firefighters, this is why there are so many signs telling you do take the stairs. Power failures too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "In 2004 the New York Times reported that more than 2,500 of the 3,250 "walk" buttons in New York intersections do nothing. "The city deactivated most of the pedestrian buttons long ago with the emergence of computer-controlled traffic signals, even as an unwitting public continued to push on."

And what do you expect them to do? Since only 2/3rds do nothing, how is the pedestrian to know which 2/3rds that is? They have no choice but to always push the button.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why don't they remove the inactive buttons?

<comment><USER5> It's probably more expensive than just snipping the wires.

<comment><USER6> Why would they even bother to do that? Just deactivate the buttons in software.

<comment><USER7> I don't think those buttons were driven by anything we would consider "software."

<comment><USER6> Do you mind explaining? I can't tell if this is meant as a joke or a serious counter-argument. At any rate I assume there is some sort of firmware controlling the lights [edit: guess not, read juson's comment below], monitoring the buttons/ induction loops, etc. and the easiest way (to my mind) to disable to buttons would be to disable them in this software and have the system stop monitoring them. However if you have any insight into how the lights work that would be great.

<comment><USER8> hey kgermino,

Sorry to butt into the convo, but I was a summer intern at a major "traffic light" operation (for lack of a better term) in the southeast (aka, they did all of the traffic lights and systems for the southeast USA). It will seem almost shocking to many here on HN, but the traffic control industry is lagging behind drastically.

I believe the newer systems started going IP based just a few years ago, and (gasp) wireless networking of traffic lights is a __really __new thing. It has to do with the environment the system must handle and how "tamper-proof" it must be, which leads to hardware and software being waaayy behind the curve.

The main point though, is that it would be very reasonable to think that some hardware, especially if installed before the 90s, wouldn't have "software" to just "turn off monitoring". Even the newer boxes aren't completely controlled by software, they have physical circuitry that operates as a "fall-back" to make sure that things like two green lights on adjacent roads can't be green at the same time, even if the software was hacked, had a bug, etc.

<comment><USER9> Even moreso than that, many of the lights in New York still run on genuine relays. You can easily hear them at many street corners in Manhattan, happily thunking away. (The New York Subway is also still powered almost exclusively by relays, even to do complex things like monitor train speed. It's both impressive and disturbing to see what they were able to accomplish a hundred years ago without modern computing hardware.)

<comment><USER10> Any recommended links on where one could read more on the NY Subway systems you mention? I'm fascinated by pre-electronic computing, and this sounds like a particularly interesting example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Incidentally, the door close button does work in Japan. And you can cancel erroneous floor selections.

(The funny part is that the elevators are made by the same companies that make them for the US market. But they seem to be "updated technology" rather than the 1930s-holdovers that we have today.)

The most modern elevator system I've used is the one at the new Bank of America Tower. You type the number of the floor you want to go to on a keypad, then the display tells you which elevator to take. You go in, and there are no buttons at all. It seems cumbersome, but it really does seem to reduce waiting time. (And annoying people that hold the elevator for all their friends. These elevators just smash the offender, solving the problem for good.)

<comment><USER12> In my building the elevator doesn't even know to return to the lobby when idle :(

Returning to the lobby means you're in the right place half the time (roughly -- I for one use the elevator to go up more than to go down). Anywhere else has much worse odds.

<comment><USER13> Many buildings with multiple evelators are programmed to return to a stagger position, so all of the idle elevators are at least one floor apart if not evenly distributed across the whole height of the building. The closest idle elevator responds to a call button.

This is easiest to observe in builds with glass elevators.

<comment><USER14> SimTower was a great elevator simulator. If you spend any amount of time with the game you realize that a staggered approach is more efficient.

It's too bad there aren't more games in the genre. It might be fun to experiment with more types of traffic flow and programmable elevators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Many close-door buttons that appear to do nothing only do nothing if the natural cycle has not been interrupted. I've seen ones where if you press the open-door button to interrupt a door closing, then the close-door button becomes functional and causes an immediate door close.

<comment><USER13> I agree, I've also noticed the elevators in my office building are on a schedule and behave differently during business hours than evening and early morning hours.

Maybe it's for the convenience of the after-hours cleaning staff, but after 7PM the close door button can even make the door close before it finishes opening upon arriving at a floor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This reminds me why I don't slashdot anymore. By the fourth comment there's an extensive argument over universal health care.

EDIT: irony noted.

<comment><USER13> I don't read Slashdot comments because of the repetitive or off topic jokes that add nothing productive to the conversation.

<comment><USER17> Interestingly enough, I enjoy Slashdot for exactly that reason (and the occasional insightful comment). I haven't found any other place on the net (yet?) with such witty geek humor.

<comment><USER18> I gave up Slashdot after a long time because of the predictable jokes, but do miss the genuinely clever ones. If the funny filter could somehow determine the difference between the clever stuff and the memes (or if there were two moderation options to separate them), it might be more useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A key word missing from the HN title is "most." _Most_ door-close buttons don't work, _most_ pedestrian walkways buttons don't work, but _some_ do, and it's very easy to test which ones do.

They aren't all placebos.

<comment><AUTHOR> What's an easy way to test if a pedestrian-walk button works? I think this would actually take a lot of work to chart time-to-walk with/without button presses. Elevator door-close buttons would be easier, assuming that the doors is supposed to close immediately after pressing the button.

<comment><USER20> At least where I live, the non-placebo buttons have an immediate effect - press, and the walk light will change to a blinking don't-walk hand, which then turns to solid as the corresponding traffic light turns yellow/red.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Based on your anecdote, I'm pretty sure I've never encountered a functional push-to-walk button...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I know of one example of this from the Lyndon B. Johnson vice presidency (1961-63):

His Air Force Two aircraft, SAM 970 [0], has a fake temperature switch in the presidential stateroom. The staff had it installed after they got sick of him coming up to the cockpit and fiddling with the temperature controls.

[0] [http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing- vc-137b-707-12...](http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing- vc-137b-707-120sam-970-air-force-one)

</comment><comment><USER22> Isn't the interface there for "Fireman mode?"

 _In most elevators, at least in any built or installed since the early nineties, the door-close button doesn't work. It is there mainly to make you think it works. (It does work if, say, a fireman needs to take control. But you need a key, and a fire, to do that.)_

From: [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_paumgarten?printable=true#ixzz14jGwM2z9)

See also Design With Intent: [http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2008/10/01/placebo- but...](http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2008/10/01/placebo-buttons- false-affordances-and-habit-forming/)

<comment><USER23> You don't even need a fire... just a key...

I'm a firefighter/EMT in upstate New York. We use an elevator key from time to time to hold an elevator if we know we're going to need that elevator to move a patient in a few minutes (in addition to other "fire related" uses like actual fires, fire alarms, and elevator mechanical issues).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's not such a big secret that most elevator close buttons don't work: if you push them, nothing happens. That's not too hard to figure out on your own. And which, by the way, annoys me greatly and causes quite the opposite of a "feeling of control" in me, as it rather demonstrates my _lack of control_! (Also, in the back of my head I hear the elevator company laughing at me in a Nelson kind of "Ha! Ha!".)

What is it about those three to five seconds between chosing your floor and the door closing that makes them feel like three to five hours? I suppose it's because we use elevators so frequently that all these seconds start adding up to some actual time wasted without any reason.

<comment><USER25> I too feel a lack of control and frustration from the fact that walk signals (such as across 3rd St in SF) and elevator "close" buttons obviously do nothing. Perhaps it's my Aspergers/geek thing, but I feel patronized by the fake buttons.

On of my favorite things about traveling to places like Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, etc. is that the close door buttons _work_. It's ridiculous, I know, but I feel like it points to some sort of cultural difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I recently finished developing a simple news app for the iPhone. I wanted to reduce the overhead of the app as much as possible and I wanted a refresh feature but I didn't want the user to have the ability to receive news updates from my service at his will. So I made the cache only expire after 15 minutes. When the user clicks the refresh button within 15 minutes of a previous click it actually does nothing, but display an activity indicator for 2 hard coded seconds. This isn't for critical news updates. Just very slow niche news updates. It's my most recent version of a placebo button.

</comment><comment><USER27> The door close button in my previous apartment worked. Then again the door stayed open for an unreasonably (for a guy in his 20's) long time because of the number of elderly people in the building.

<comment><USER28> My previous building in Miami had it connected, but possibly to allow more capacity per elevator. Four elevators is not enough for 21 floors of ten units each.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> James Gleick explores this theme in his very enjoyable book Faster, as part of a broader look at the accelerating pace of modern life.

For the interested, the book's website is at <http://fasterbook.com/> and the chapter about door close buttons is here: <http://fasterbook.com/cgi- bin/faster/fchapter.pl?3>

</comment><comment><USER30> I heard somewhere that in the UK, the buttons for crossing the road react faster if you mash them, the idea being that it's most likely a child. I've never tested it, it's always seemed rather rude to give the cars a shorter phase. (god, that's such a British way of thinking)

</comment><comment><USER31> In Hong Kong the 'close' buttons really do work in the majority of elevators and they show at least 50 times more wear and tear than any other button.

It shows how damn impatient we are in HK.

</comment><comment><USER32> In Singapore, most elevator door close buttons work. It's very civilized and one of the small delights of living here.

</comment><comment><USER33> In my previous apartment there was a strange, doorbell-like button in the middle of one of the walls. I pressed it once in a while, but it never seemed to do anything.

It also seemed very unlikely that the floorplan of the building had ever put a door near it, so I'm guessing it was a placebo button for some previous resident.

<comment><USER34> _I have a switch in my apartment... it doesn't do anything.... Every once in a while, I turn it on and off.... One day I got a call... it was from a woman in France.... She said "Cut it out"...._

\-- Stephen Wright

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've heard that this is also true of all of the pedestrian buttons at traffic lights in central London, though I've never seen an official confirmation.

</comment><comment><USER36> People like to feel in control, but not the responsibility that comes with the power. This looks like a (dishonest) way to combine both tendencies.

</comment><comment><USER37> The door close button not working annoys me less than not being able to deselect selected floors. We've all had that idiot "friend".</comment>


Gource, a version control visualization tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5xPMW5fg48

<comment><AUTHOR> The video shows the project (<http://code.google.com/p/gource/>) and the results it gives against various open source projects like the Linux kernel and Ruby on Rails.</comment>


Test Coverage is a Lie - <AUTHOR> https://smizell.me/writing/test-coverage-lie/ <comment><USER2> MC/DC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_condition/decision_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_condition/decision_coverage) addresses the given example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here, great link—thanks! Do you know of any coverage tools that implement this?

<comment><USER2> For C/C++, and various code generation from state description tools like matlab/simulink, specific in the auto/aircraft/safety industries, I won't mention by name here, but no FOSS.

Anyway, I think about this stuff all the time and really enjoyed your article, thanks for writing it, it doesn't seem to be a very popular topic to write in such depth. Thanks again!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What time (BST) are YC interview notifications sent out? - ts-hn

<comment><AUTHOR> From a quick Google at previous years threads it has been evening PDT, so middle of the night for us in BST.</comment>


Self – Fun Through Simplicity - <AUTHOR> https://selflanguage.org/ <comment><USER2> The core Self concepts washed up in Javascript.

The most influential thing about Self turned out to be the optimization technique called "code splitting", where you identify a "happy path" and hoist out all the expensive lookups along that path, with maybe just checks for whether you are still on it. So, for example, you emit code for one loop that just does fixed-size integers, and another one for all the other numeric types. Then at runtime, the code first checks for an int32, and then (in practice) always ends up in the fast one.

</comment><comment><USER3> I always loved the vision of systems such as Smalltalk or Self. Interacting with software objects dynamically and having a system that is in a sense 'alive' seemed so cool to me, yet all the time later we're still sitting here typing characters into text editors to make static programs. Always wonder from time to time why interaction with programs from a developer standpoint has virtually not progressed or changed.

<comment><USER4> In some senses I think it has changed, into the modern web dev experience. You've got a living program running, handling events on the DOM, etc. And developer tools let you inspect and modify objects live, time travel in the debugger, and more. The web I think is where all the mindshare has gone for this type of programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> OK, but why today?

Previously: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=selflanguage.org](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=selflanguage.org)

<comment><USER6> I believe it was mentioned during the thread about the commercial failure of Smalltalk. I suspect this arose from that.

<comment><USER5> OK. I assume you are referring to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24329485](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24329485) which has also been posted before

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23301722](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23301722)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23402199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23402199)

although not with the success of today's posting (based on comment count.)

<comment><USER6> That's the one. The title changed at some point.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: StockNerd – A community for index fund investors - <AUTHOR> https://www.stocknerd.com <comment><USER2> Warren Buffet tells his heirs to go 90% SP500 and 10% Bonds. So just buy VOO and BND, rebalance yearly and you are done.

OR do a 3 fund portfolio like: [https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three- fund_portfolio](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio)

OR buy a target retirement fund from Vanguard: [https://investor.vanguard.com/search/?query=Vanguard%20targe...](https://investor.vanguard.com/search/?query=Vanguard%20target%20retirement)

OR fill out a risk profile on Wealthfront/Betterment and invest there.

Bottom line is pick an approach and don't ever touch a damn thing.

I believe this advice can fit on a single web page and doesn't need an app, a community or otherwise.

<comment><USER3> Any tips for investors in Europe? (Germany or UK in my personal case).

I understand that these strategies are not country-specific, but not sure if Vanguard is accessible to non-US citizens, and there might be tax implications in different countries. That's why I'm asking.

<comment><USER4> The idea of indexing doesn't require a specific index. It is more general than that. The idea that average returns are pretty good, and average returns with low cost-of-management are even better.

In order to get average returns, the key is simply to own a tiny fraction of the entire market, whatever "market" means to you. The focus has long been on the S&P simply because it has historically done a pretty good job of representing the US equities market, it is market-cap weighted (unlike the Dow), and the earliest index funds tracked the S&P.

It's my expectation, stated without proof, that it should be easy to find a comparable index in Europe, if you want to match the average European return.

<comment><USER5> The key idea behind index investing is paying low fees.

Non index funds perform the same as index funds (and research indicates you can differentiate the ones that outperform a priori with any method). But those funds have higher fees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm a little confused about what to do with a community for index fund investors.

"So, you letting your investments sit there, not touching them?"

"Yup, you?"

"Same"

<comment><USER7> Well, if you are on a trajectory of a 30-year career job at one company with little to no changes in your income but adjustments and raises, then you probably don't need such a community. But judging based on Boggleheads forums, there's a need. Yearly re-balancing, changing your goals, windfalls, unplanned expenses, adjusting for tax efficiency, switching jobs, re-doing your portfolio because you did it horribly when you started, helping others who have a messy portfolio, and of course, the many questions every n00b has when they start.

Of course, Boggleheads would do just fine for any of these, but more options never hurt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If this is about index funds specifically, that is definitely not clear. If anything I think this is NOT about index funds, but individual stocks. Index funds are basically set it and forget it, so why would I want to continuously use this app? Just buy some $SCHB, $SPY, $VTI, or whatever combo of index funds you want and that's it. Daytraders, swing traders, and people buying individual stocks would want to use an app on the regular.

<comment><USER9> > Index funds are basically set it and forget it, so why would I want to > continuously use this app? Just buy some $SCHB, $SPY, $VTI, or whatever > combo of index funds you want and that's it.

Because of re-balancing. Say you invest in three index funds at a 70/20/10 split. One of those funds performs much better than the others over time, leaving you with a distorted ratio. So you re-balance to get back to your original 70/20/10\. Typically you'd re-balance one or two times a year.

Ideally you want to avoid selling to rebalance, so if you're investing regularly (once a month, for example) you want to know exactly which funds to put your money in to each time to maintain your percentage split.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough, that being said, I'm not sure I need an app/community for that (i.e. a Stocktwits clone for index funds).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Something that's never made sense to me about stocks:

Unless you're extremely wealthy, any money you are able to save (outside of retirement money) is probably money you are going to want to use for something to improve your life in the semi-near future. Buying a house or car (or just a better one) for example.

With that assumption in place, under what circumstances does investing in index funds make any sense whatsoever? The entire market crashes on occasion due to herd mentality, and yet even given that level of risk index funds still take many years to appreciate in value significantly. It seems like an absolutely terrible place to put money that isn't specifically intended for retirement or something like a 529 plan.

<comment><USER11> It's pretty popular in the Financial Independence crowd, where the goal is to get enough money to be able to live on interest alone. It's not for the extremely wealthy, rather the somewhat high-income middle class. You can even make it work with less income if you can manage to cut your expense.

Most people adjusts (ie: increases) their spending when they get additional income, but it doesn't have to be that way. In the end it's a lot about trade- off, like for exemple do you prefer stuff like going out to restaurant, owning a car, etc.

<comment><USER12> The FI crowd is 90% expense management and 10% investment. It seems like most folks there have a goal to stop working but are willing to do that and live like a pauper the rest of their lives. If that works for them, great, but I'd much rather work at a job I love, make very good money, and enjoy my life, rather than "retire" at 35 and live on $24k/yr in interest for the rest of my life.

I'd love to see a Financial Independence plan around growing [a] business(es) and retiring early but not crazy early (40-55) and living on a substantial middle/upper-middle income for several decades.

<comment><USER13> I've read some of those web sites and they're insufferable. Buy a house in cash so you have no payments, shop only at Goodwill, collect rain water for drinking, and never, _ever_ get sick, and you, too can retire at 40!!

<comment><USER14> Sure, there are people in the FI crowd trying get by on $15k a year. Not my cup of tea, but if they're happy that way I say more power to them. But the community is a spectrum -- there's also a fairly large contingent (composed mainly of doctors, engineers and other high-income workers) whose savings at early-retirement time seem to cluster around ~$3M, allowing for retirement spending of $90-100k. That buys a solid lifestyle by almost anyone's standards. Obviously, that's predicated on having a high-earning career and taking saving seriously, but it's totally doable in 10-20 years.

<comment><USER13> Do-able? Maybe. High-earning is an understatement though. If you want to reach $3M in 20 years, you'd need to save about $100K per year, assuming, say, an annually compounding 4% interest rate across your savings and investments. A lot of people who might consider themselves high-earners don't even make that much in a year, let alone are able to save it.

Even assuming you're a gambler and put all your savings into stocks and get that mythical "steady 7%" return, you need to set aside $75K every year to reach $3M in 20 years.

I'm not claiming to be the world's best saver, but I think I live frugally enough, and after 20 years into a fairly good tech career, my savings is an order of magnitude+ less than that.

<comment><USER14> I don't think a 7% interest rate is unreasonable. One of the advantages of planning on early retirement means that you can take on a lot more risk with your investments, eg. putting everything into stocks (which isn't really "gambling" \-- over long periods they've only ever gone up). If the markets are totally hammered the year you want to retire, no problem -- just keep working a few more years until they recover. And saving $75k a year is also quite reasonable if you have a high income, like a doctor or well-compensated engineer. I'm only a couple years into my career and am supporting my wife and kid, but we're on track to save a bit more than that this year.

Of course, the lifestyle choices we make aren't for everyone, and that's fine. But they're also not totally crazy. We can save that much still live about as well as the median American, and a lot better than the median human.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's basically no chance I'm going to download an iOS app for this, and I'm not super sure why it isn't just a web page..

But the landing is nice! (except I really wish this was an svg [https://www.stocknerd.com/assets/img/logo.png](https://www.stocknerd.com/assets/img/logo.png))

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We made the app after having friends and family members get ripped off by financial advisors. The purpose of the app is to teach others about low fee index fund investing. Thanks!

<comment><USER16> Don't get me wrong, but this is one of the worst product landing pages I've seen. Except for the short marketing line, there's NOTHING about the product there (why it exists, where does it work, how does it work, is it free, and so on), and it makes me NOT clicking that AppStore link for sure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry. We will work on improving it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> so... stocktwits? I don't see the value here. what would I possibly gain from following the portfolios of random shmucks who are more likely than not losing money?

<comment><USER18> Yeah or bogleheads. There's no shortage of information on this topic, you just have to be willing to read it instead of overpaying some financial advisor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like the idea.... why should I trust you for financial advice? How are you licensed? How do I know you're not using my data for trading, How do I know you're not feeding me false data you've already traded on?

<comment><USER20> Good question. We don't give financial advice. The app allows you to make a simple index fund portfolio with stock data, then monitor other user portfolios if you want. You can discuss indexing with other index fund investors in the "discuss" area.

Our other account got rate limited and says "you are submitting too fast" so we made this one.

<comment><USER21> Is this social motif?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> it's an app, not a community.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. We have a discussion area inside the app.

<comment><USER16> And how are we supposed to know that, if the page doesn't say almost anything?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This looks more like a fantasy stock league, especially with leaderboard.

Also it is good to point out leaderboard means nothing, it is totally pointless.

This is like playing poker with infinite fantasy stack.

If you are good investor you will never be on this leaderboard :)

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm sad to see there's no signup via email. I don't have Facebook or Twitter and, although I do have a Google account, I prefer not to use it to authenticate services.

</comment><comment><USER25> This looks great! Looks very polished and like something I'd really be interested in, but I'd love to be able to see what it's about before signing in. Will you be adding a way to do that, or at least login with email?

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER26> The example images are absolutely hilarious as a parody of exactly what discuss would occur in an app like this:

TomLevelhead: "Index funds are sensible and smart."

MarySmartpants: "I too enjoy the consistency and moderate growth inherit in a diversified index"

</comment><comment><USER27> I will check it out. I have been reading Tony Robbins - 'Master The Game' which talks about index funds as a better alternative to high fee managed funds. This sounds like it could be a good source of info for picking them

<comment><USER20> Thanks! We're trying to get feedback and advice. If you run into any issues please let us know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Anybody having issues trying to login using Twitter? It says "Creating Profile" and does nothing.

</comment><comment><USER29> Fails when trying to create a profile. Nothing happens. Either after 1/2 second or a few seconds.

<comment><USER30> Please try now, I think we fixed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> iOS only... Not useful to me

<comment><USER20> Working on Android. We wanted to see if anyone liked it before doing a second OS. I like Android also.

<comment><USER32> Check out React Native. Could've shipped on both platforms at the same time. Best of luck

<comment><USER22> or do a website...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I worry the popularity of index funds portends something bad.

</comment><comment><USER34> you would think that something with "nerd" in their name would have a web app or at least an android app...

</comment><comment><USER35> Nicely executed, I'll use it!

</comment><comment><USER36> you should show some screenshots before asking for a download

</comment><comment><USER37> No Android

Bah.

I want to try it! :)</comment>


Hacker Who Stole $5M by SIM Swapping Gets 10 Years in Prison - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gyaqnb/hacker-joel-ortiz-sim-swapping-10-years-in-prison <comment><USER2> A bit more detail from the leading hungarian news website and the Civil Liberties Union (it was covered already and later got translated to English):

\- he was invited to visit Telekom's office (the expenses was on him), and wanted to give them the details

\- he was not convinced by the meeting that they'll solve it (close the doors): tried again, successfully (yep, that's a bit grey hat).

There are several issues not with the hacking, according to the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union:

\- the prosecutors used a way too generic accusation which missed several important details, like [regarding the crime] when, how, etc.

\- the accusation claimed that the hack was done by using the Internet (seriously).

\- they (the prosecutors) offered a deal of "admit the crime == free to leave" but when the guy denied they asked for more prison.

\- the prosecutor stated: "we are not IT people but we know from the media (!) that with Internet and certain competence he could have hidden more of his digital footprints". And the prosecutors didn't asked for expert advisory for more than one an a half year long.

\- they asked for 8 years because the hacker should have been able to disturb a public interest service, though the company claimed that this server/service was not affected any of their customers.

Hungarian source: [https://ataszjelenti.blog.hu/2019/01/25/igy_kert_bortont_eti...](https://ataszjelenti.blog.hu/2019/01/25/igy_kert_bortont_etikus_hacker_vedencunkre_az_ugyesz)

<comment><USER2> @admins, please delete this, or move to its proper submission, sorry about it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19055249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19055249)</comment></comment>


DeVry Agrees to Pay $100M in Case Alleging Deceptive Ads - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/15/us/ap-us-devry-settlement.html <comment><USER2> > In a statement issued Thursday [..] officials for Devry [..] denied all > wrongdoing but said they are "pleased this matter is reaching resolution."

Okay standard sleazy corporate thing: settle the lawsuit, but deny any wrongdoing..

> Under the settlement, DeVry agreed to pay more than $49 million to the FTC, > which says it will distribute the money to students "harmed by DeVry's > conduct."

> The chain also agreed to forgive more than $30 million in loans issued > before September 2015, and $20 million in debt owed by former students.

> Going forward, DeVry has promised not to misrepresent job and income > prospects of potential students, and not to count jobs that students found > more than six months before graduation.

If there was no wrongdoing, why would they promise not to misrepresent prospects going forward? That means they were, up to this point, misrepresenting prospects. This promise is admitting exactly the wrongdoing they explicitly said they are not admitting to.

Just say "Yes, we were merely counting whether our graduates had jobs or not, instead of more specifically if they were able to obtain employment as a direct result of their studies. Sorry. We will now collect and be more exact about this information."

Note: IANAL. Just a rational human being.

<comment><USER3> >Yes, we were merely counting whether our graduates had jobs or not, instead of more specifically if they were able to obtain employment as a direct result of their studies.

To be fair, pretty much every school does this, hell even my lawschool did this. The reality that higher education is selling a dream of cushy, high paying jobs, and that dream is a lie. If education institutions told the truth and provided un-manipulated statistics, they probably wouldn't be getting enrollment.

<comment><USER4> it's not so cut and dried. For one thing, suppose that someone really wanted to study history and loved their university studies, it was the best years of their life.

Firstly, perhaps having a degree lets them get a job - even outside of history. It can be a plus in any corporate job, regardless of whether it's related in any way to history. Among other things it creates cultural fit, makes interesting colleagues. This has direct positive effects all over. It also shows people's ability to work through a complex and long degree program.

There is another thing though: the fact is that this can be kind of a "white lie" that they needed to go do a degree in history. Perhaps they didn't - perhaps they could have started their corporate career 4 years earlier with no bad ramifications.

Still, they wanted and enjoyed that time and expanded as a person. It can be in people's interests to keep up the white lie that it was 'necessary'. And not just a splurge. Not just, "yeah I did it as a lifestyle thing."

So for all of these reasons and more, it is far from cut and dried. It's not as simple as people in this thread are saying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I always assumed advertising is misleading, massaging data and presenting it in favorable light.

Here is a drop in the ocean. How many cases then FTC didn't detect the stuff?

Here it must have been really gross / blatant.

<comment><USER6> The outcome of this advertising is why the hammer came down. Thousands of lower class students burdened with debt.</comment></comment>


Why Not Start Your Weekend on Wednesday? - <AUTHOR> http://timharford.com/2008/12/why-not-start-your-weekend-on-wednesday/

<comment><USER2> It's not just about status, but the people who would want the relatively higher income are correct, IMO.

Abstract (fiat) money exists as a proxy for productive labor. If in one world an hour of unskilled labor costs $1, and in a parallel world, an hour of unskilled labor costs $10, I'd assume that world A's dime is worth world B's dollar, and all other things equal, I'd rather have a dime in world where everyone else had a penny than a dollar in a world where everyone had ten dollars.

If I have relatively more money, I can pay people to do things that I don't care to do (rake leaves, remove garbage, grow food, whatever) much more easily than if everyone in the world has more money than I do...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's all about the status.</comment>


Internet start-ups: Another bubble? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/17733145?story_id=17733145&fsrc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economist%2Ffull_print_edition+%28The+Economist%3A+Full+print+edition%29 <comment><USER2> The graph on the article is misleading. Show me trending for the last 5 or 10 years. The number of exits over the past two is a completely irrelevant metric because all sorts of investors were squeezed shortly after the recession started.

Calling internet startups a bubble in the same breath as the housing market bubble is doing a disservice to the readers. Every single American was seeing housing prices soar. All sorts of people were borrowing 100k against their new found home equity to "invest" in their home, despite the fact that homes have no revenue, while the majority internet companies do.

Most people running startups in the community I'm most active in (Toronto) _have revenue_. For example: dateideas.ca is only 6 months old and they have revenue, guestlistapp.com has been out of beta for about half a year (launched a year before that) and they have fairly substantial traction, then you have the bulk-ward of the Toronto tech scene, freshbooks.com, with over 2 million users and a solid business model. Just look at their hiring page, 22 positions listed for a 50 person company.

There is a huge difference between building valuations based on a solid business model and changing public trends (ie, more people getting on/trusting the internet), and building valuations on selling ponzi scheme debt that overvalue non-revenue generating assets like housing. The same article could have been written about clothing manufacturing in England just after the industrial revolution started.

<comment><USER3> bubble or not, I can't help point out that it's profit not revenue that is important - it is the easiest thing in the world to make loss making sales.

<comment><USER4> Unless you give dividends, profit is mostly just money you forgot to invest in your business. A successful business is about sustained growth with a balanced budget.

<comment><USER5> In accounting terms, an "investment", at the time you make it, does not change your profitability. This is because you are assumed to have received in return an asset of equal value. For example, the purchase of equipment results in a decrease of your cash balance, but an increase in your fixed assets of the same amount. An "expense", on the other hand, does reduce your profitability. So profits are not a sign of a lack of investment, but of revenue that exceeds your expenses, which seems pretty desirable to me.

<comment><USER6> Accounting: Assets = Liabilities + Capital. This deals with the Balance Sheet. Expenses/Revenues are reported on the Income Statement. Two completely different things. An income statement basically explains how well you're using the items on your balance sheet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _The emergence of an active secondary market in shares of start-ups yet to go public has allowed founders and early investors in firms such as Facebook and Twitter to bank fortunes without waiting for a traditional exit by IPO or acquisition. These secondary-market prices feed hype about what these firms might be worth, were they to list on the stockmarket. Not many shares are available; many punters are chasing them. And those punters tend to be outsiders, such as fund managers and private-equity firms, who may not understand the tech business as well as insiders do._

Wait a minute. There's an unregulated secondary market where pension fund managers and other non-tech people invest other people's money into stuff they don't understand?

Previously the argument was that only wealthy people will lose out on their risk money if this is a new bubble, but if large investors like pensions and the like are also feeding this bubble than maybe we do have a new equity bubble on the way - except this one is happening on unregulated markets and so perhaps even more dangerous.

<comment><USER8> It seems to me that bubbles _only_ form to catastrophic sizes around the unregulated edges of markets.

e.g. If not for the ineffectual IPO regulation, the dot-com boom couldn't have built so much irrational exuberance. Similarly with nonexistent regulation of derivatives and the ratings thereof during the real-estate bubble. And also with Savings & Loans being deregulated in the late 80s, leading directly to that real estate disaster.

<comment><USER9> I'm not sure how you can possibly characterize the housing bubble as occurring in the "unregulated edges" of markets.

Banks purchased AAA rated MBS because they were legally obligated to own AAA securities (by Basel I and II) [1]. The securities underlying an MBS are heavily subsidized and regulated by the government, and several major players in the market were backed by the government [2].

Derivatives are a sideshow. The speculative bubble was created by banks and real estate speculators ("homeowners", as politicians call them, even though most of them only own highly leveraged call options on a house), with the strong encouragement of the government.

[1] You can satisfy capitalization requirements by purchasing AAA bonds from another party.

[2] In spite of assorted claims that they had nothing to do with the crisis, the GSEs seem to require the biggest bailouts.

<comment><USER8> The ratings were obviously unregulated. The oversight committees that received reports that agencies were slapping AAA on garbage outright ignored those complaints.

The unregulated derivatives were a necessary instrument to obscure the risk of the underlying assets. I don't know how you could imagine institutional investors being conned into thinking trash tranches of subprime mortgages were safe investments without derivatives obscuring their contents and ratings agencies blessing garbage as AAA.

If the bubble only wiped out speculators, _it_ would have been the sideshow. The money that chases high risk is a rounding error compared to the money that can only chase 'safe' investments.

Without derivatives and fraudulent ratings the bubble couldn't have ensnared nearly as much money, the banks couldn't have become so precariously leveraged and the system itself wouldn't have been on the brink.

<comment><USER9> Let me get this straight. The government requires banks and other financial institutions to purchase securities rated AAA by one of five ratings agencies. As of 2006, the ratings agencies could even be subject to some penalties if they screw up the ratings in certain ways. The ratings agencies are all selected by the SEC. The downside risk is bounded below by the implicit guarantee of a government bailout, and again the biggest players in the market are government sponsored entities.

I think we have a very different definition of "unregulated".

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that the crash of the housing bubble was somehow based on people being conned into buying securities that were too complex to understand. An MBS is a fairly simple security, and so far MBS's have done exactly what they are supposed to do: allow you to take exposure to a long position on housing.

<comment><USER8> > _"I think we have a very different definition of "unregulated"."_

Yes. I recognize unenforced regulation as not being regulation.

Also, the implicit guarantee of a bailout wasn't a known or accepted feature of our financial system prior to TARP.

> _"I don't know where you get the idea that the crash of the housing bubble > was somehow based on people being conned into buying securities that were > too complex to understand"_

The _crash_ wasn't. But the feature of the situation that put our entire financial system on the brink were the securities.

Again: if high-risk crap wasn't rated AAA and being sold to institutional investors, then much less of it would exist, exposing the banks to much less risk. More of what they could sell would be properly rated, meaning there would be enough reserves and insurance to cover the expected losses. There still would have been a bubble and crash, but it would have been more on the order of the Dot Com cycle, than what we just experienced.

When dot coms bottomed, investors were wiped out, but the banks themselves were fine. When the properties behind the securities bottomed, the banks were obligated to continue making payments. Payments they couldn't possibly make, because they didn't have enough reserves or insurance to cover the spread between the risk they _said_ they had and the risk they were actually exposed to.

<comment><USER9> _Yes. I recognize unenforced regulation as not being regulation._

If regulations were unenforced, why were banks bothering to meet capitalization requirements at all? Why invest in MBS at all rather than something with higher returns? And if capitalization regulations were unenforced, why bother selling your own loans and purchasing an MBS of loans from some other bank (paying a chunk to loan packagers in the process)? And why bother buying wasting money getting a AAA rating from the government specified ratings agency?

What regulation do you believe was not enforced?

 _Also, the implicit guarantee of a bailout wasn't a known or accepted feature of our financial system prior to TARP._

You have no idea what you are talking about.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long- Term_Capital_Management#19...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long- Term_Capital_Management#1998_bailout)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government- sponsored_enterprise...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government- sponsored_enterprise#Ownership_and_implicit_guarantee)

 _Again: if high-risk crap wasn't rated AAA and being sold to institutional investors, then much less of it would exist, exposing the banks to much less risk._

This is not in dispute. Also not in dispute: if regulations didn't demand that banks own lots of AAA rated securities, they wouldn't have bought as much.

You may be able to, with the benefit of hindsight, pinpoint some specific regulation that might have prevented the bubble. But lack of that particular regulation is not the same thing as an unregulated market.

<comment><USER10> Interesting that you waste so much "productive time" that you claim you value so much arguing about those things on HN. It's not like HN exactly attracts the crowd that will write next banking regulations, is it? Then what's the point of having these arguments here? If it's about getting more karma, then it's obvious you'll get plenty from extremely libertarian tech crowd here, but it's not like your 12000 karma is convertible into real dollars?

Another observation is that many times you come in with an argument you seem to purposefully derail it into something that more suits you. The original argument was:

 _Similarly with nonexistent regulation of derivatives and the ratings thereof during the real-estate bubble._

instead of addressing those two issues you go into government involvement in housing market and Basel requirements. Those are important issues not unrelated to housing bubble, but that wasn't original point!

Of course housing market was heavily regulated and influenced by government. But market for housing securities wasn't! It is basic knowledge now that pretty much everyone could structure, rate, insure and sell pretty much anything to pretty much everyone. I don't understand how you could argue with that?

And finally, back to the topic, is it not indicative of something that SecondMarket is now the marketplace for both the toxic housing junk and hi-fly tech start-ups?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "For the first time since 2000, internet and technology entrepreneurs can raise seed capital with little more than a half-formed idea and a dozen PowerPoint slides."

Really?

<comment><USER12> When did YC start? I'm pretty sure they've been funding ideas for a few years now. I think one of them turned out to be Reddit.

<comment><USER11> The ideas that YC funds are much more than half baked, and it's not just a "few powerpoint slides".

<comment><USER12> I didn't mean that as an insult to YC companies, or YC, but when YC started they were literally funding teams with ideas. In Reddit's case, YC convinced the team to do a different idea than what they had presented.

I'm thinking YC now funds more mature companies, but that probably is a sign that there is less of a "bubble" now than there was before.

<comment><USER11> Interesting point ... I don't know much about YC back in the early days.

Don't get me wrong, I think the right idea _should_ be fundable based on a few PowerPoint slides. I just don't see it happening very often at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It says that founders are less technical, and more likely to be based in NYC not SV.

But YC, the poster-child of the new wave, is totally "technical founder", and I also read that the share of VC investments in California vs Rest Of The World has risen from 47% in ~2000 to over 50% now.

Discrepancy?

<comment><USER14> I think the Economist is describing a different wave than YC. The poster child for its wave is Groupon, which has lately stole the press cycle by turning down the $6B acquisition offer from Google. (Which was a masterful PR move, BTW - we don't even know if there _was_ an acquisition offer, yet by leaking that they turned it down, Groupon has become the new hotness in every media outlet's eyes.)

YC seems to invest much more in B2SmallB startups, which are less visible from a media perspective and require more technical savvy. Reddit's their most famous success because it was one of the few that is purely consumer web, but their other investments have included Wufoo, Heroku, ClickFacts, Auctomactic, FrogMetrics, and RescueTime, all of which are aimed at small businesses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love reading about world affairs in The Economist, but seeing how poorly they covered this topic is making me take a second look at my preferred magazine.

<comment><USER16> I read a copy last week that I grabbed while in an airport. It had some good articles on China and its military capabilities, but then had a horribly written, pompous article about Google with factually incorrect information and exaggerations.

Very disappointing. What is happening to the Economist?

<comment><USER17> > Very disappointing. What is happening to the Economist?

Nothing - it's the same magazine it always was. Only this time it's covering a topic for which you have a large degree of expertise. I imagine someone with vast knowledge of China and its military capabilities is shaking their head at the article you just lauded.

<comment><USER18> You nailed it. Journalism will always seem "challenged" on a topic on which you are an expert. If they don't completely screw it up with factual errors, give them an A+ and take everything else with a grain of salt.

I worked on a biofuels startup for 2 years, focused on a lesser known crop. During that time I did not read a single article on our sector which did not contain major factual errors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think this article fails to understand a fundamental trend that has been going on from 2000 to 2010 and wasn't going on in 1998. Increased market penetration of web based devices. Having a business in 1999, when the potential population of internet users is roughly 1/10th what it is now, when you do not have such a large population of non-tech people using very sophisticated devices and the web constantly. Of course, even in such a favorable environment, it is possible to have a bubble, however the numbers even they themselves use are both statistically insignificant and not telling the whole story.

</comment><comment><USER20> The secondary market is an excellent place to get burned big time.

<comment><USER21> No one gets burned without a burner.

The secondary market is therefore also an excellent place to burn someone big time.

<comment><USER16> "Fear and greed, mofo."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> <http://redeye.firstround.com/2007/10/this-year-i-mea.html>

</comment><comment><USER23> I've used up my 5 free views on the economist... anybody have a link that avoids that problem?

<comment><USER24> <http://www.economist.com/products/subscribe>

<comment><USER23> My SO bought the economist groupon for me yesterday, so I have a new print subscription, but the details are still on their way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is there going to be a time in the next 5 years where most people change their views about the [usefulness/profitability] of [investing/creating/buying] [housing/start-ups/restaurants]?

If your answer is yes then there is currently a bubble.

<comment><USER14> Only if the change is negative. If the change is positive, then you have a trend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes, except for the ones that aren't...

</comment><comment><USER26> jesus what's with this new trend of calling everything a bubble?

<comment><USER27> It's a bubble bubble! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why are they calling overvaluation by private investors a stock market bubble? I know -- they didn't say "stock market", but that's what "bubble" refers to. It's a word that conjures up images of the the dot-bomb era with a crashing stock market and thousands out of work. Having a few startups overvalued by some private investors is not going to create the same effect.

Why is it that the media can't go for more than two years without making a big fuss about tech bubbles? There is no bubble. We're in a financial downturn -- a bad one.

</comment><comment><USER29> A big reason the dot-com bubble was bad was because normal people with more to lose were depleting their retirement savings buying stock in stupid companies that recently went public. There are no more IPOs. The public at large cannot participate in this bubble. This financial part of this bubble involves a bunch of rich guys and even richer investment firms. Who cares if these people lose .001% of their net worth betting on startups?

<comment><USER30> The problem is the 'rich guys' are using the average Joes money, often lent to/invested with them by banks and pensions funds to try and secure the largest return possible.

Even if they're using their own money, the cynic inside me predicts that if/when the house of cards comes crashing down, Mr and Mrs Taxpayer will be asked to 'stabilise' the industry in the interests of national economic security.</comment></comment>


Path Dependence of Startups - <AUTHOR> http://coconutheadsets.com/2009/10/12/the-path-dependence-of-startups-part-2-sugarscape/

<comment><USER2> The source cited, Benhockers book ([http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth- Evolution-Complexity-Eco...](http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Wealth-Evolution- Complexity-Economics/dp/1422121038)), was a great introduction to "complexity economics". However, if you are more interested in the actual work, head to amazon and buy Growing Artificial Societies ([http://www.amazon.com/Growing- Artificial-Societies-Science-A...](http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Artificial- Societies-Science-Adaptive/dp/0262550253)) or head to Google Books ([http://books.google.com/books?id=8sXENe8QrmYC&dq=growing...](http://books.google.com/books?id=8sXENe8QrmYC&dq=growing+artificial+societies&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=JNLUSpi3NczulAfbxdicCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false)).

</comment><comment><USER3> I am sorry, but this is a serious stretch--comparing the results of this simulation with a startup situation. I don't see a link to the original study, but my question with simulations and AI results is to ask to see your wastebasket--tell me also what did not work. It would be a little surprising if twiddling with some of the parameters in this approach didn't markedly change the result.

<comment><USER4> I agree that it's a stretch, but the idea that wealth inequality is an emergent property of economies makes sense to me, due to the simple fact that money invested grows exponentially. If you make more than you need to survive, and you invest the money you don't need to survive, that money grows exponentially. You'll get wealthier and wealthier over time, while someone who makes just enough to survive will never "break out" of that way of living.

<comment><USER5> I agree with you but, what is your point?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _3\. Get as close to you can to a sugar mountain. Marc Andreesen has always said that you will have the best chances if you are located at the geographic center of your industry._

This article seems to have failed at its own metaphor. A startup sugar mountain is not a geographic location, it is a growing market.

</comment><comment><USER7> _...random choices have just as much to do with guiding our fate as our skills and work ethic..._

I believe it.

Now I'll forget all about it and get back to work.

<comment><USER8> "Overall, better agents fared better"

So no need to forget about it :), if our fate does not put us on the path to a big sugar mountain, I am sure there are other smaller sugar hills that we can find on our own :)</comment></comment>


Monge's theorem - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monge%27s_theorem <comment><USER2> Reminds me of flatland: There are three circular buildings. There's a line that all three people can be on such that each person thinks there are only two buildings and no one can agree on which two buildings are present.

Edit: Nope, nevermind, two of the points both see the medium and small circles!

<comment><USER3> However, it does seem like they all see only two buildings, though. Interesting point!

<comment><USER4> They all see _at most_ two buildings. You can arrange the circles in a line so that each sees only one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this the start of a new approach to public-key cryptography?

<comment><USER6> I strongly suspect that any cryptographically suitable problem derived from finding the intersection points of external tangent lines would reduce to the closest vector problem on lattices.

</comment></comment><comment> ur-whale The wikipedia page has mostly geometric proofs. Are there algebraic proofs?

<comment><USER7> I studied it at the University, it was introduced after Pappo's theorem and other theorem demonstrated using Descriptive Feometry most of all.

On the other end it was a Projective Geometry course and at the end we used a lot the General Linear Group, in particular 4x4 matrices for bilinear forms, so it was like warming up with Geometry to arrive to the Algebra tools.

<comment><USER8> He's Pappus in English, for what it's worth.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are some client side hacks you use on a website? - <AUTHOR> By client side hack I mean bypassing a restriction of a web application through a client side modification (bypassing the JS code or modifying the html form). <comment><USER2> > Or modifying the html form

You used to be able to send a POST request containing a comment for sites with comments disabled, and the comment still got submitted for the article. Newer versions of Wordpress don't let the comment through anymore. You used to be able to spam the admin area of Wordpress against the admin's wishes.

</comment><comment><USER3> I sometimes hack the site I work on at work to do things more quickly than possible in the UI. Just writing commands into the F12 console.

</comment><comment><USER4> uBlock "element picker" just works so well that i barely have to use any code to remove restrictions

</comment><comment><USER5> Manually inspecting and removing the paywall in a few obscure sites.</comment>


Don't waste life - <AUTHOR> http://danielflopes.com/lifewaste/ <comment><USER3> If your working time is spent doing something you don't really enjoy that sucks, obviously. It'd be great if we could all spend our lives doing creative, enjoyable things. Realistically though, if your work facilitates a happy life outside of your job then it could still be well be worth it - <USER2> parents have led full, happy lives (or so they tell me) raising their kids, doing their hobbies, seeing their friends, and yet they worked jobs that weren't that they both claim weren't much fun, and I'm certain that neither of them look back with any regrets.

The expectation that you can carve out a lifestyle where everything is worthwhile is unrealistic, and while a few outliers might actually achieve it, most people aren't going manage to get anything like that. Don't tell people that they're wasting their life because they fail to pass a ludicrously high bar. A life spent doing fulfilling things is not a waste even if it also includes lots of things that suck.

tl;dr Grow up, take responsibility for yourself, and make sure that on balance, after you're dead, you've done more good stuff than bad, even if your job falls in to the 'bad' category.

( _This was posted earlier and then deleted for some reason. This is just a repost of my comment from the first time._ )

<comment><USER4> >The expectation that you can carve out a lifestyle where everything is worthwhile is unrealistic, and while a few outliers might actually achieve it, most people aren't going manage to get anything like that.

I've managed it, but it's taken a lot of hard work. I finally have enough money from side projects and clients to quit my job and go full time. I have a few friends who are also looking for work and to quit their jobs, so when I quit, I'm going to join my developers office (they have an office for free in a building their parents own). My few friends are going to live with my in my apartment and we're going full steam. Right now I work between 90 - max 110 hours a week. If I'm not @ work, I'm managing clients and juggling multiple projects, while doing UI for all of them.

I almost have a sweet professional portfolio online, and the moment I do, I'm quitting.

It's taken a lot of time and sacrifice but it's worth it and definitely doable. Also, being 20 years old, no debt, no GF, no obligations makes this infinitely easier.

<comment><USER5> > It's taken a lot of time and sacrifice but it's worth it and definitely > doable. Also, being 20 years old, no debt, no GF, no obligations makes this > infinitely easier.

Definitely. Its much more difficult when you're 30, have a mortgage, a wife, possibly kids, etc.

<comment><USER6> Conversely for me, it's easier with the wife, kids and mortgage: these responsibilities forced me to "grow up" and shocked me out of my protracted childhood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All true ideas, none particularly helpful. No one reads this and thinks: "Wait, I can be happier if I work on something I'm passionate about and get paid for it?! I had no idea!"

The problem is that its really hard to 1) identify what passions you have, 2) filter those by which you want to pursue for the rest of your life and 3) figure out a way to make money on that passion. Most people I know my age (mid 20's) are happy to "waste life" and make money for a couple years while they answer those decisions.

<comment><USER8> I think a lot of people our age are just happy to have a job in the first place. Young people are flocking to big cities (especially the Bay area, NYNY and DC) just to get anything. I feel really lucky to have the nice "real" job I have now, and given a lot of what's going on right now I don't think it's realistic or responsible to expect that even your job will be balls to the wall awesome. I mean... presumably they're _paying_ you for a reason, right?

Of course, I agree with the sentiment as you do. Just pointing out that there are difficulties in trying to make this happen in addition to the three problems you mentioned.

<comment><USER7> Right, I think it's worth it to take a job that pays you, and you can use that money to develop your passions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another issue is balancing great passion with higher cost. For example, I quit a previous job (that I had some passion about) for my current job, which is ... ok ... but pays twice as much.

As a result, I'm able to fly more, which is something I'm very passionate about.

Sometimes hobbies that we're very passionate about can also be very expensive. There's ways to reduce cost, but in the end, sometimes the best way to have more opportunities to enjoy that passion is to take more "non-passionate" hours that generate the funds.

I'm not saying my choice was right or will always be right. I still struggle with it. I guess the point is, optimizing for happiness is not as simple as it appears, especially for someone who is not independently wealthy.

</comment><comment><USER10> I saved 15 minutes by not reading this blog post :)

<comment><USER4> Why do you come into threads and make comments like this? Genuinely curious. Do you have something against the author or..?

<comment><USER11> Because some people are of the opinion that there is entirely too much of this fluff on HN, myself included.

<comment><USER12> Some day I'm going to go into a pub, strike up a conversation with a stranger, and when they inevitably ask me what I do, I'll say, "Why, thank you for asking! I write about optimising our lives for happiness, integrity, and success."

And then I'll hope that they murder me.

<comment><USER13> Is there anything wrong in principle with writing about optimising our lives for happiness, integrity, and success?

<comment><USER14> Just that the posts are seldom insightful or helpful in any meaningful way. And, they are frequently ultra-redundant.

I mean, truly, who here (or on the planet) hasn't thought it would be ideal to earn a living by pursuing a passion?

And, how many forms of this _exact_ article have we seen?

<comment><USER4> That's fair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> when i clicked on the link the page came up blank and i thought it was a brilliant critique on reading blogs. I hit reload to make sure and was disappointed to find a "do what you love" article, uncritical and un-self- aware of all the problems with that line of thinking. Rather than reprint them, here's the best exploration of "do what you love" i've read recently: [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-of- love/](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/in-the-name-of-love/)

<comment><USER9> Wow, your link should have been the article instead! That was one of the better reads I've had in a while. Thank you for posting it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 'I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.' \- Kurt Vonnegut

</comment><comment><USER17> Want to be happy? Please subscribe to my newsletter.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's like every kid has this epiphany, "Aha! There are only so many hours in the day. If only I could make my work enjoyable, life would be so much better. I must share this insight with the world!"

Welcome to the club of people that includes anyone who has ever had a job or simply thought for more than 15 minutes about the eventual need to support one's self.

</comment><comment><USER18> Before you put on your snark hats, note that the author explicitly claims that he is working on "advice for people in their 20s". Actually, I bet the audience this would resonate with is even narrower.

Hoping to read articles about how to cope with finding career fulfillment in "sanitation engineering" or "making-ends-meet".

</comment><comment><USER19> A favorite quote by Mormon church leader David McKay: "...no other success can compensate for failure in the home."

</comment><comment><USER20> Yeah, do what you love and love what you do. And when you really do it, work stops being just job, it's life as well. And there's no separation between you at home and you at work. Simple yet, very important idea. You can't get tired of work if you really love it.

<comment><USER21> "And when you really do it, work stops being just job, it's life as well. And there's no separation between you at home and you at work."

That is the single most terrifying sentence I've read in some time now. No thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What if I have many passions and I can't decide?

I like programming but I really love breakdance, videogames, traveling, cooking and others.

Right now I'm working as a software engineering because in my country is a little hard to live working on the others things I like.

That does it mean I'm wasting my life?

</comment><comment><USER23> If everyone followed this guy's advice, I feel like we would all be pumping our own shit and serving our own food when we go out for dinner. I guess we would be more well rounded individuals huh?

</comment><comment><USER24> I like the idea of the article. However, I don't think you understand free will or the idea of choice. Not everyone gets to have this perfect little say in what they want to do.

<comment><USER25> Free will doesn't exist anyways. Your brain is deterministic like a biological calculator.

<comment><USER26> I'm not so sure...

[http://thebaffler.com/past/whats_the_point_if_we_cant_have_f...](http://thebaffler.com/past/whats_the_point_if_we_cant_have_fun)

<comment><USER25> Brains and calculators are both made out of molecules and their operations are caused by physical interactions of matter and energy. Just like any machine.

<comment><USER14> People keep saying stuff like this, but I wonder about the molecular structure of sentience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Flagged. Can we please keep this kind of non-technical fluff and non- newsworthy fluff off the front page?

Failing that, can we at least hold ourselves to a higher standard of fluff?

</comment><comment><USER25> You can only do one thing at a time. 1000 other things are being neglected. So this means your time is wasted anyways.

<comment><USER28> That hardly follows..

<comment><USER25> Doing one meaningful thing is still insignificant compared to the Groundhog Day scenario of repeating each day over and over and doing 1000 things.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: VPC Design Studio – Subnet CIDR planning with Terraform/Pulumi code gen - <AUTHOR> https://houqp.github.io/vpcstudio/ <comment><USER2> This is really well done. Really appreciate the Pulumi output option.

If we wanted to support vpc peering between accounts, is it a matter of copy paste?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but you would have to add the AWS peering resource yourself, which is not included in the generated code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is nice! Any plans to add CloudFormation output?

<comment><AUTHOR> I probably wont have time to add it myself, but PRs welcome at [https://github.com/houqp/vpcstudio](https://github.com/houqp/vpcstudio) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I could not tell but some coworkers asked when I referenced it (saw it in a lobste.rs post) if it supports terraform 0.12 and it seems you don't string interpolation anywhere, so it seems it is compatible with, given the code, < 0.12.x and > 0.12.x because of exactly what syntax is needed for VPC stuff. Is that correct?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's right, the generated Terraform code is for > 0.12.x. That said, it's pretty easy to change it to generate < 0.12.x by editing the templates at [https://github.com/houqp/vpcstudio/blob/master/src/terraform...](https://github.com/houqp/vpcstudio/blob/master/src/terraform_view.ts).</comment></comment>