Ask HN: Bad tests better than no tests? - <AUTHOR> I can see this going both ways. But I think a project without tests would be less toxic than a project with bad tests. I'm curious what your thoughts are on this. <comment><USER2> It depends how bad they are. I'd say the threshold between bad and useless for me is: 1. Do you have to change unrelated tests to still pass as you add features? 2. Do the tests ever catch issues as you modify related code?

They may be bad, but if they work and don't get in the way, there's no reason to remove them. Even if they're useless, you're pretty much guaranteed to prove yourself incorrect the moment you delete them (you'll introduce an issue they would catch). In most cases it's better to just leave stuff in until it can be rewritten properly - removing should be the last resort.</comment>


Apple Answers Questions about Apple and security - <AUTHOR> http://apple.com/customer-letter/answers/ <comment><USER2> > From the Q&A: it is certainly possible to create an entirely new operating > system to undermine our security features as the government wants.

I hope one day they can say "no, it's impossible", confidently and legally.

</comment><comment><USER3> Something I do not understand in this debate is the notion that creating the OS will somehow create an extra security vector - if they have the ability to create it (ie, since they have the private signing key) then isn't that already the same thing? It is not like Apple has a monopoly on good developers, presumably if someone is able to obtain their signing key it would lead to the same thing as obtaining the OS they are worried about getting out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree, I've wonder this too, though I'm guessing Apple is very aware of this and actively takes steps to make this near impossible. That said, I have never seen any public statement on the topic from Apple why this is the case; I asked them before and got no answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> SO the quest remains - if they can create their current OS without it getting out into the 'wild', why are they so sure the 'new' OS would? "National Security" will always win the argument - no matter what they say and hope, even if the jack-boots have to break the doors in. I'm torn on the issue, but again, it goes back to why are they sure the new OS will 'get out'?

<comment><USER5> Time. They don't actually ensure that the current OS is not in the wild, they just make sure it kept secret until they release it. They would need to protect the OS and people who made it (or can make it) forever. The reality is, simply by delivering the modified os, it leaves their security to be handled by the honestly less competent FBI or law enforcement.

You are right about the government always finding a way to win, but this whole case sounds like the FBI messed up on handling the phone as evidence and is spinning the newsroom hard with the new drama with apple.

The reality is, despite apple's protests to the contrary, building the modified OS and giving it to the FBI would hurt their business a lot in both PR and savvy customers leaving.

<comment><USER4> you're assuming that apple will give it to them. Theoretically, the FBI could deliver the phone Friday, pick it up on Monday, along with the data... nothing (OS-WISE) changes hands, it doesn't 'get out', and could be destroyed or kept for only the most 'national security' required cases... (we all know then that EVERYTHING will be NS).

<comment><USER6> > nothing (OS-WISE) changes hands, it doesn't 'get out'

It would have to 'get out' if it's installed on the phone. You are assuming the FBI (or other interested TLA agencies) lack the ability to extract the the compromised OS from the phone and/or retarget it to other devices. An even more nefarious scheme would be to modify the current code on the iPhone so that it logs Apples signing as they apply the update, but that edging into tinfoil territory</comment></comment></comment></comment>


California's last nuclear power plant shutting down - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diablo-canyon-nuclear-20160621-snap-story.html <comment><USER2> From yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11951096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11951096)

</comment><comment><USER3> Does anyone know if California still has ~40 active coal-powered electricity plants? I think they were around 500 megawatts each IIRC.</comment>


Why Google Gave Up - <AUTHOR> http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/why-google-gave-up/

<comment><USER2> The easy conclusion here is that electricity is too cheap right now. The price of carbon should be included. It's really unfortunate how that has become a political battle.</comment>


Scandals suggest standards have slipped in corporate America - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/business/2019/04/06/scandals-suggest-standards-have-slipped-in-corporate-america <comment><USER2> Nonsense. Trying to get away with whatever you can, has always existed as a principle. Nowadays, it is easy to forget Dow Chemicals, Philip Morris etc. which were nothing short of nefarious in their pursuit of profits. Bhopal still takes the cake in industrial disasters, not Chernobyl [1].

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

<comment><USER3> Bhopal might have caused the most _direct_ deaths or injuries but opioids have, IMO, surpassed that. Not to mention broken families, psychological problems etc etc. [https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the- epidemic/index.html](https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the- epidemic/index.html)

<comment><USER4> Indeed, the Sackler family is a scourge.

Behind every great fortune lies a great crime...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We live in an era where it is very, very challenging to cover up scandals. Previously, we lived in an era where it was very easy to cover up a scandal _and_ what was counted as a scandal was a much higher bar.

It is unlikely standards have slipped. Standards are likely rising.

<comment><USER6> Is that true? Or, have the scandals occurred in places on the edges?

It used to be that DuPont, etc..., would dump chemicals into rivers in the literal middle of America. Now, they seem to be operating in more remote places, i.e., like Down Chemical in central/southern Argentina, where information, perhaps, doesn't flow quite as readily or quite as quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> When will we start recognizing fake surprise as an enabling linchpin of the current economic system? These "bad apples" aren't outliers, they are the very essence of the system.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there a good way to measure this?

I can't remember a time when I didn't read some article ... just like this one.

This seems like a very easy sentiment to sell / belive at anytime.

<comment><USER9> You certainly can't say air travel is more dangerous than it used to be.

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

<comment><USER8> Well you shouldn't say that.... someone probabbly is selling it though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> im shocked. shocked.

the company i work for is 100% ethical, never even once have i whiffed a sense of even the most brief impropriety.

at least thats what they told me to say if i didnt want to be fired, blacklisted, and have my career destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this specific to corporate America? Scandals are all over from Vodafone to Nestle.

I am not convinced. Also, the fact that America houses larger percentage of Fortune 500 corporations, there will be more examples of American vs non- American due to the population size.

This is a generic problem with large corporations.

</comment><comment><USER12> Me thinks this is allowing for some crap that old corporates used to try. That is to say, older companies weren't exactly saints.

If anything, we are starting to show that we do hold corporations to a high standard. Hell, have we ever held cigarette companies truly to task for all of the crazy additives they did simply to make things more addictive?

Now, there is some irony that some industries that came into being with intense regulations are showing the value of those regulations as they lose them. But that is a different story than corporate America slipping in standards. Quite the contrary, that is a fairly predictable story that regulations can serve a purpose.

</comment><comment><USER13> "Slipped" implies unintentional. A better headline is corporate America is getting away with more.

<comment><USER14> I would say that is hardly true. Corporate America is getting more scrutiny than ever.

<comment><USER15> Scrutiny alone does not imply any real consequences.

<comment><USER14> But lack of scrutiny surely implies lack of real consequences. Anyway, I would say that in terms of consequences, even there corporations face more of them, simply because the public gets to know more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why not? It's economically rational even for the company now. It used to be rational just for the executives.

</comment><comment><USER17> "For critics of capitalism none of this will be a surprise. They argue that firms controlled by private shareholders are especially unethical. Yet it is easy to poke holes in this."

The existence of a handful of outliers does not a thesis disprove.

</comment><comment><USER18> We had 8 years of Republicans curbing back regulatory oversight, increasing regulatory capture. The sitting President won on "draining the swamp" and proceeded to hire lobbyists to his staff because "they know how the system works" and yet there's been only further deregulation and destruction of government entities. If Americans want it to stop they will stop voting for people who literally base their party platform on destroying government oversight. There was literally an article yesterday about how when the IRS went after the wealthy for tax evasion, their budget was cut by Congress. The solution to this is a political one. Vote in people who believe differently if you want different outcomes. Otherwise quit complaining, you've got the government the people voted for.

<comment><USER19> If I were to increase regulatory capture while cutting back regulations how exactly would I do that?

<comment><USER20> Huh?

Regulatory capture (i.e., capture by whatever's being regulated) and cutting back regulations both have the same effect: weaker regulation.

<comment><USER21> Sadly it is often not so simple. Complex regulations can advantage large incumbent firms by making it harder for newer entrants to their markets.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: where have you had success advertising online (besides majors)? - <AUTHOR>

I've tried Google, Yahoo, Bing, StumbleUpon, Facebook, MySpace, Reddit, AdOn.com & some others I can't remember. I've had the most success with reddit: http://ye.gg/reddit<p>Now I'm thinking of trying 4chan. Has anyone had success there or on other sites? I realize every product is different, and that's fine. I just want to know if you've been successful there. <comment><USER2> Re: 4chan

The $/impressions ratio sounds too good to be true. And that's exactly what it is.

If you've ever used 4chan there would be no way you'd actually spend money advertising there. The site is process based where users constantly look in the center where content appears. Ads are on the side (separated away from content) and become totally ignored by the community. Plus, most users block ads - ask how they calculate those users.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm excited to hear how advertising on 4chan goes for you. Keep HN updated.</comment>


4 HTTP Security headers you should always be using - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibuildings.com/blog/2013/03/4-http-security-headers-you-should-always-be-using <comment><USER2> ...says website not using them.</comment>


How do I capitalize on my idea to automate my work - <AUTHOR> Hey guys! I currently work for a shipping company to pay for college, one of my duties includes transcribing shipping labels (detachable papers) to our computer, a task which can take some time. I had the idea to use python OCR to transcribe them automatically with a webcam, I'm currently testing it at home and it seems to work, and I know my boss is interested in this sort of thing, so my question is how do I pitch this to gain the most benefit for myself (eg, do I ask for a raise? a bonus? something else?) <comment><USER2> I would licence it and pitch it to him as a SaaS. Bonus or a raise won't get you as much value for your product but this way you can get another stream of monthly income and maybe he knows other shipping companies that you can sell your product to. Good luck</comment>


Peter Thiel is almost definitely behind this mysterious Heterodox Science course - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/21/14025760/peter-thiel-heterodox-science-class-berkeley-institute <comment><USER2> We know Thiel has a lot of business smarts; and apparently he won a math competition in junior high, or something. But does actually _know_ any basic science? Like you know -- hypothesis testing? Thermodynamics? Atomic decay? The carbon cycle? Stuff like that?

I'm not talking about the "gist" or the "general idea" behind these subjects. I mean the actual, bullshit-proof, nuts-and-bolts level. You know, _science_.

And since the answer (given the unscientific gobbledygook he routinely spouts) is in almost all probability "no" \-- why would anyone in their right mind† present this man with the task of teaching a "science" course at a putative educational institution, accredited or otherwise?

† Other than the "right" mind to fleece a whole lot of gullible young people out of their Benjamins, and to promote Thiel's personality cult and pseudoscientific agenda, generally.

<comment><USER3> Science in this context is more like the archaic meaning--knowing. As opposed to the arts, which has to do with crafting and manufacturing things. That dichotomy doesn't work well in the modern world and so the sense has been lost.

But the archaic meaning is reflected in, e.g., Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" (the book is meticulously and rigorously mathematical, not a treatise on style or idiomatic programming patterns; today we categorize the field as a science--computer science--instead of an art), and in the Copyright & Patent Clause of the U.S. constitution, where copyright is meant to promote "Science" (because the product of science is principally literary works) and patents the "useful Arts" (i.e. creation of functional objects).

The course is clearly a course on the philosophy of science, which among other things explores and critiques methods of acquiring, identifying, and applying knowledge, including things scientific inquiry.

Today science has a more narrow meaning--pursuits of knowledge by way of the scientific method and other systematized empirical methodologies (e.g. statistical inferences). Although, some of what we call science today is purely mathematical, like string theory; and many of the criticisms and defenses of string theory are great examples of what the philosophy of science encompasses.

The philosophy of science is a big tent. And, yes, a lot of it is gobbledygook: are we really in a dream world? Oh noes, Roko's basilisk! But there's a lot of mediocre "science" occurring in labs all around the world, so I'd think twice before dismissing the domain altogether. Ultimately, both in the archaic and modern meaning, science is based on the application of logic (of which there are several kinds) and I think that's what matters most; it's not sufficient in itself but it's definitely the greater distinction.

(END OBJECTIVE POINTS) (BEGIN SUBJECTIVE POINTS)

Peter Thiel strongly identifies as libertarian. An article[1] posted here recently, written by a well-published libertarian-anarchist, described libertarianism as suffering from "a bias toward contrarian narratives". It only makes sense that Peter Thiel would be strongly interested in examining and analyzing so-called mainstream assumptions in sociology, economics, and political theory. I don't think Peter Thiel is wrong in being critical of mainstream assumptions and ways of thinking, but libertarians today are too incredulous regarding mainstream theories and "facts", and insufficiently skeptical of contrarian narratives, particularly those that lead to seemingly counter-intuitive and even opposite policy recommendations.

It's no coincidence that some of the most prominent climate change deniers and their apologists are avowedly libertarian. Being skeptical of climate change (unreasonably skeptical, I should say), and having an abiding "faith" in free markets, fits the culture of modern libertarianism. No matter that the science of economics is fundamentally descriptive, not prescriptive; strictly speaking, it makes no more sense to be pro-free market than it does to be pro- gravity. And no matter that the scientific method does not affirm facts, but merely rejects null hypotheses; and so in some sense even the most rigorous science is inconclusive.

I used to identify as libertarian years ago. But for this and other reasons I identify as an anarchist, at least in terms of what I consider ideal. Libertarianism began as a more pragmatic political movement derived from anarchist thought. It was a rejection of many radical and absolutist ideas in the anarchist community, and grounded itself in the science of economics. But libertarianism has become more like a religion now, whereas anarchist thought has softened. Libertarians are committing the same errors anarchists once did, namely eliding the distinction between normative (what should be) and positive economics (immutable economic phenomena)), and not appreciating the limitations of their models and assumptions. Libertarians (including in academia) increasingly tend to discount and reject empirical evidence when it doesn't line up with their philosophy (e.g. free markets are optimal), rather than accepting and applying empirical evidence, qualifying it as necessary but nonetheless reassessing theory in light of the evidence. It's really disconcerting. Peter Thiel seems like a very smart guy, but he does seem to be suffering from this contrarian bias. The thing is, some people like being contrarian. It's the adult version of the rebellious teenager. It's not enough to recognize that mainstream theory is flawed and incomplete; they have to reject it in its totality in favor of radical counter-narratives. This is increasingly happening across the ideological spectrum, rather than being confined to the edges of scholarly discourse; but it's really pervasive in the libertarian community.

[1] [http://romaninukraine.com/putins- libertarians/](http://romaninukraine.com/putins-libertarians/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> René Girard is a joke. His theory about mimetic desire is pseudo-science and does not rely on evidence. Girard is a litterature teacher that got the mimetic idea reading 19th century novels and then proceded to prove it using 19th century novels.

The fact that he taught for so long at a major US university is telling about the poor state of social siences and the coward mentality of the academic world.

If you speak French, read "René Girard, un allumé qui se prenait pour un phare" by René Pommier, it's a very clever and funny refutation of this theory.</comment>


Relational Database Experts Jump The MapReduce Shark - <AUTHOR> http://typicalprogrammer.com/programming/mapreduce/ <comment><USER3> This is a good refutation of the linked article. The authors of the original article definitely seem to misunderstand both the purpose and the usefulness of MapReduce.

The claim that MapReduce is a poor implementation, for example, is particularly silly. Most large scale relational databases rely on very powerful centralized machines, and replicas of those machines. MapReduce, by contrast, relies on a large number of commodity systems. The decentralized nature makes hardware failure much less likely to cause problems. The system knows how to dynamically reallocate tasks, and new nodes can also be added while the system is running.

</comment><comment><USER4> This title makes no sense. Was Fonzie jumping over a more popular show disguised as a shark? Let's mix some metaphors!

<comment><USER5> I absolutely agree -- the phrase"jump the shark" has now jumped the shark. Seems to be egregiously mis-used and over-used especially by tech bloggers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You have to read the original article very closely or you'll miss their point: _in terms of distributed database research, MapReduce is a step backwards_.

So what else is new? Things interesting to database researchers often take two decades to become mainstream.

To be interesting to a database researcher you need to think way beyond MapReduce. Stuff like distributing queries over 10^12 RFID sensor nodes each storing different data in a different way, optimizing in real time and adapting to arbitrary breakdowns in the communications network.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think perhaps the original authors were really thinking of BigTable:

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

<comment><USER8> What makes you think that? I think DeWitt and Stonebraker can distinguish between BigTable and MapReduce (indeed, their blog post mentions BigTable and Hadoop as well).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The beauty of MapReduce is in its elegant simplicity of use (once properly implemented) think of Unix shell commands like grep, sort, cut - <USER2> functional tools (as in functional languages - zero side effects), which do only one task but do it amazingly well, Google just added a new type of screwdriver to the toolbox.

</comment><comment><USER10> Why don't those guys descend from their ivory tower and build something novel, interesting and useful?

I'm sure the solution to today's exponential data explosion is building one giant relational database inside of Mount Kilimanjaro...

<comment><USER11> RE: "ivory-tower", "something useful"

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

<comment><USER12> Sure the guy is academically merited. But it's not the first time he compares apples to pears.

[http://dlweinreb.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/object-oriented- da...](http://dlweinreb.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/object-oriented-database- management-systems-succeeded/)

This everything must be a RDBMS viewpoint seem rather rigid.

<comment><USER11> So...you read the Wikipedia link and the main thing you got out of it is that the guy is "academically merited"?!

The part about him founding five DBMS companies and being the CTO of one of the largest DBMS companies in the world doesn't suggest that maybe he might have some practical experience? The fact that he made some major contributions to the database field somehow leads you to believe he is now confused and talking complete nonsense? No? Yes? Okay...I guess he is just an ivory tower egghead. My bad.

I've read the Weinreb post...and I agree with Dan's points, but they're really just disagreeing about the definition of success. I've tried to use object databases in industry, and I can assure you that they ARE considered failures by most people. (I'm not saying their bad reputation is entirely deserved, however...) By the way, Stonebraker saying that object databases are a 'failure' is not the same as him saying that RDBMS should be used for everything. Apples and Pears ;-) Actually, Stonebraker is one of the most vocal proponents of using non-RDBMS technologies when appropriate. See the "One Size Fits All" paper and its follow-up.

I'm not saying I agree with everything (or even anything) that Stonebraker writes, but I think it is a mistake to discount his opinion out of hand because you erroneously think he is just some confused egghead who isn't up on the latest technologies and is clinging to the RDBMS technology he is comfortable with. That does you both a disservice. People tend to write blog posts that argue one side or the other...the 'truth' often lies somewhere between the two sides.

P.S.

If my reply is unnecessarily nasty, it is partly due to the fact that I have insomnia and I'm therefore pissed off (it's 4:30am here and I have to leave on a cross-country flight in two hours.)

<comment><USER12> Have you read the original article? They are really comparing some abstract MapReduce with RDBMSs and saying: MapReduce sux its not relational. And from my perspective making an ass out of themselves. Some quotes:

"we have serious doubts about how well MapReduce applications can scale."

"All of the following features are routinely provided by modern DBMSs, and all are missing from MapReduce:

* Bulk loader -- to transform input data in files into a desired format and load it into a DBMS

/../

* Updates -- to change the data in the data base"

If this is not criticizing MapReduce because it's not a RDBMS what is. The only thing worth reading is their summary which is quite good, until it hits this point:

"Last, before MapReduce can measure up to modern DBMSs, there is a large collection of unmet features and required tools that must be added.".

So no, I'm not that impressed with him right now, since 2 out of 3 (I've read the One Size Fits All paper which I found interesting) things I have read about him/from him to me is utter bull*.

Thats why I stated that he's academically merited, which at least is a fact.

<comment><USER11> Fair enough. If that is your evaluation of the article, then that's cool. I usually try not to completely write off people that I know are smarter than I am in a particular area (Stonebraker), just because I don't understand or agree with all of their arguments.

I think the article is much less of a fanboy article and more of an academic "thought provoking" article, though. I think their tone is a little too adversarial, but I believe they are essentially arguing that people can learn a great deal from older DBMS technologies and apply that knowledge to their applications...without always reinventing the wheel. They're arguing that people not forget the past when they look to the future, because combining ideas from both 'camps' might lead to a better solution. A "Best of Both Worlds" approach. Where would we be now if most of the Lisp discoveries and lessons had been assimilated into the programming culture sooner, for example?

I personally think the original article is more in the vein of suggesting deficiencies in using MapReduce for most applications than saying it is a complete dead-end. They acknowledge that "MapReduce may be a good idea for writing certain types of general-purpose computations." They say they are excited by its fault tolerance, etc. They just think it is being misused in many instances where other technologies are superior. I strongly agree with them on that point: there are relatively few use cases where MapReduce is ideal. And even when it is appropriate to use MapReduce, it should usually be augmented by other technology as well. They cite several deficiencies in the MapReduce approach that are completely valid, and I think your 30,000 foot overview of their criticism is misleading.

I think too many people are missing the forest for the trees with the original article (which is partly the fault of the authors, since they could have worded some of their arguments better.) People seem to think that just because Google is doing something that it is the optimal solution...but even Google uses BigTable to get around some of the deficiencies of MapReduce. And what is BigTable? A column-oriented DBMS! And who is one of the world's leading experts on and proponents of those? Why, Michael Stonebraker, the ivory-tower moron who wants to use RDBMS for everything!

As bayareaguy noted: "You have to read the original article very closely or you'll miss their point: in terms of distributed database research, MapReduce is a step backwards."

<comment><USER12> You said: As bayareaguy noted: "You have to read the original article very closely or you'll miss their point: in terms of distributed database research, MapReduce is a step backwards."

This to me is really funny since I don't think you can view MapReduce as distributed database research. I haven't used it, and while I admit that I might have gotten it all wrong, to me its a library/dsl/paradigm/technique for parallelization of certain data-processing tasks. So to me that statement makes as much sense as "lisp, viewed as a monitor , is a step backward compared to lcds".

Others, that I consider smart, have noticed <http://bitworking.org/news/288/Stonebraker-on-MapReduce>

Also, while it was a while since i viewed the techtalk on bigtable, and I really agree BigTable is a column-based DBMS, I can't seem to remember that they built it to get around deficiencies in MapReduce, I understood it as a compliment. BUT it might have been much more constructive if, as someone said higher up, they wrote the original article about BigTable, because I do believe that their criticism is actually valid (as in apples vs apples) in some cases regarding BigTable.

<comment><USER6> There is some good information on MapReduce and BigTable here:

\- <http://research.google.com/people/jeff/index.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Clearly these guys need to stick to commentary on RDBMSs, which MapReduce most definitely is _not_.

MapReduce enables Google to do it's thing, so I wouldn't call it a "major step backwards".

<comment><USER8> The fact that Google use MapReduce has no bearing on whether it is a "major step backwards" to the database community. The original authors essentially argue that MapReduce ignores 40 years of database technology, and that it is the worse for it; whether MapReduce is essential at Google isn't the point.

<comment><USER14> You're absolutely correct here. Wouldn't most users consider the fact that it ignores database research and history a feature of MapReduce?</comment></comment></comment>


There Is No Plan for the End of the Coronavirus Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/there-is-no-plan-for-the-end-of-the-coronavirus-crisis.html <comment><USER2> Asia is having a 2nd wave because of students and people working in the West returning to Asia due to fear of lockdown or the spread of the virus. I don't think the opposite migration will be of similar magnitude since it hit Asia first and the Asia->West migration already happened in Feb.

</comment><comment><USER3> > "... about one in every three people being tested could be getting the wrong > result. You can't build any kind of public-health response on top of > information that faulty."

Grim truth.

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's the only plan that exists in the US: get a viable vaccine out the door as fast as possible. Everything between now and that future point (likely next year) is a question mark. I simply can't see how "Test & trace" can even work logistically in a country as large and free of draconian government action as the US, especially given how many people here don't even take shelter in place seriously. So for now it's a game of watching the case count and asking how much economic damage we can take before things get _really_ bad.

<comment><USER5> There's also the possibility of a treatment that dramatically lowers deaths. That would be a game changer. As will widespread serological testing that allows those with antibodies to move freely and return to non-essential work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes there is: Pray for a friggen miracle. Atheists, it's worth a try in case there is a %0.00001 chance you are wrong.

<comment><USER3> What has that article got to do with atheism, or religion?</comment></comment>


Percent of tested baby foods in U.S. contain toxic metals, report says - sahin-boydas https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/toxic-metals-baby-food-report-215045525.html <comment><AUTHOR> The leading number was automatically stripped, but you can edit the title now and add it back in.</comment>


U.S. warns Ottawa of WikiLeak release - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/24/wikileaks-ottawa.html

<comment><USER2> This is the type of positive political pressure news agencies should be putting on governments.

It shouldn't be just wikileaks - there are far too many reporters and far too few journalists.

<comment><USER3> Canada and the US have some of the most pliant media out there. It makes me want to throw up every time I see someone interview a power figure.

For example, last year our PM decided to prorogue parliament (ie, like ending a session of congress prematurely) because it was politically expedient. During his end-of-year, he got a soft-ball question and simply dismissed it as business-as-usual (even though it upset people and led to a fair bit of protesting). Meanwhile, people like Jeremy Paxman in Britain thrive on asking tough questions and calling politicians on their bullshit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Excellent. It used to be that you had to wait a generation or two to find out what actually transpired behind closed doors (example, Margaret McMillan's excellent book "Nixon in China"), but thanks to Wikileaks we can know merely years after the fact.

<comment><USER4> Here's to hoping that that time will decrease to 'near realtime' and that _all_ governments will live in a glass cage.

Hopelessly naive ? Maybe, but I think that it would take something like that to get some honesty in politics.

<comment><USER5> Hopelessly naive, yes.

What you're more likely to find is a situation where the less evil governments of the world (Canada, Britain, the US) have to live in glass cages while the more evil governments of the world (China, Russia, North Korea) can continue in secrecy. This I can only see being bad for the citizens of Canada, Britain and the US. All cynicism aside, changing the balance of power in the world away from the US Government and towards the Chinese Government is unlikely to be a positive move for the citizens of the US.

<comment><USER6> > less evil governments of the world (Canada, Britain, the US) have to live in > glass cages while the more evil governments of the world (China, Russia, > North Korea) can continue in secrecy

A main reason those governments are less evil is because they already live in glass cages.

<comment><USER5> That's right; they live in glass cages to a precise extent defined by democratically-formed law. If I wanted the government of my country to stop keeping secrets, I could form a party and run for parliament on a platform of radical transparency (all government data to be made public, from sensitive diplomatic communiques and military research to your next door neighbour's tax returns) and if people actually _wanted_ that they could have it.

<comment><USER7> But you would never, ever win.

People care about their local school. Their rubbish being collected. Their job being secure.

Abstract stuff like radical transparency is too complicated a platform to run on and not only that it's a single issue that can't win votes.

That's why democracy's pretty weak compared to an altruistic dictatorship. But better than any other form of realistic government out there.

<comment><USER5> Leaving aside the problem of single-issue parties, the point remains that if radical transparency were a vote-winner it would get implemented. But it's not a vote-winner because people don't want it; not only does no political party advocate it, but there's no grassroots movement calling for diplomatic communiques and tax returns to be made public. It's just not an idea which anyone takes seriously or wants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Time to stock up on popcorn. This is going to be good.

When I think of the Internet, I see it as a worldwide communication medium that equalizes (or tries to) the distribution of knowledge. These leaks will be the Internet living up to this goal.

I hope WikiLeaks doesn't release these docs on Friday, as the coverage will be drowned out (in the US) by all this shopping BS. I hope they wait till things quiet down, and do it later next week.

<comment><USER9> I would guess that Wikileaks understand the news cycle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What happened to everything else that Wikileaks used to host? I remember when it first went live it was an actual Mediawiki site that had a lot of other whistleblower documents. Since this "War Logs" stuff went up I can't seem to find any of the old documents.

<comment><USER11> My understanding is that they now only host the latest documents purportedly to cut hosting costs. Some argue that it's a bit of manipulation in order to garner more donations. You can google for mirrors of the old content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Potentially destructive? Yes.

Sometimes a broken, corrupted system needs a bit of destruction to be set in a better direction. Whatever Assange is sitting on must be damning, considering the way this is unfolding. I am intrigued to see where this goes.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think that people rushing to issue denunciations of Wikileaks and defences of the behaviour of diplomats would be better advised to wait and see what information these particular documents actually contain.

</comment><comment><USER14> Many of you have a US perspective on this, but it could be even more interesting for the rest of the world. I supposedly live in the most democratic country in the world, but that doesn't seem to prevent officials from breaking the law under US influence.

"Sweden investigating alleged U.S. spying" [http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-06/world/sweden.us.investiga...](http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-06/world/sweden.us.investigation_1_swedish- law-swedish-authorities-stockholm?_s=PM:WORLD)

"New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html)

"SWIFT breaks EU law to comply with US law" [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/28/swift_us_privacy_vio...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/28/swift_us_privacy_violation/)

"US government behind Pirate Bay raid" <http://www.thelocal.se/3969/20060602/>

</comment><comment><USER15> Is the US just saying this so that when the actual leak comes out, it seems softer? Are they just making this up for some reason, or is the leak actually real? What kind of thing could possibly be leaked, and how badly will it damage international relations?

International espionage makes my head hurt.

<comment><USER16> Well, back in July, Wired quoted Manning as saying

"Everywhere there's a U.S. post, there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed," Manning wrote. "It's open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It's Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It's beautiful, and horrifying."

The article also says "a previously unreported breach consisting of 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that Manning described as exposing "almost criminal political back dealings."" ( <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/> )

I think it's real, and I think it's bad. Time will tell though.

<comment><USER17> Bad? Its great news, without allies the US can't really act internationally and they will have to stop invading other countries.

<comment><USER16> I meant bad for the US, though I question the validity of calling what may be a massive international clusterfuck "great news".

<comment><USER18> You're absolutely right. Contrary to what parent claims, the US and our allies do a lot of good around the world that is made possible by having strong international diplomacy with other countries.

<comment><USER19> If there _are_ 'criminal' political back-dealings, then don't the people perpetrating them, bear some responsibility? Otherwise we end up in the 'too big to fail' position where anything bad these people do will always be covered up, and they basically get a blank cheque to do what they please. (by 'people,' I mean the specific politicians/diplomats/etc involved).

<comment><USER5> After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that it's ethical to leak secret government documents (from a democratic country) if and only if the document provides evidence of someone in the government behaving illegally.

Random dumps of four hundred thousand random government documents, however obtained, don't cut it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As much as I am in favor of government transparency, diplomatic channels have a very important need for privacy, and from the looks of it, this is really a senseless, destructive act by Assange and WikiLeaks. Diplomacy is incredibly complex and delicate. In particular when communicating with dissidents of foreign countries, it's often necessary to have complex and multi-faceted positions in private communications, some of which may be conflicting and offensive to one side or the other.

Take communications with North Korean or other dissidents as an example. On the surface, Kim Jong needs to think we are negotiating with him without trying to support opposition and bring down his government - otherwise he may become unstable and violent. We also however need to provide moral and material support to dissidents.

Shall we just be the fools and pretend that diplomacy is not a complex game? In a perfect world, maybe there would be no need for secrecy, but to think that diplomacy does not need some level of underhandedness, deception, head- fakes, and other manipulation is terribly naive.

We don't yet know what is going to be released, and perhaps some of it very well should be public, however if any of it damages our efforts to work with dissidents in oppressed countries, or has other destructive effects on the work of the State Department, there will be serious questions about whether real-time transparency is really what we want when it comes to diplomacy.

<comment><USER21> This argument would hold more weight if US foreign policy actually had something to do with bringing freedom to subjects of oppressive regimes, but as it stands, the US government's actions are largely cynical, self-serving, supportive of some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, and harmful to many millions of people around the world. They don't deserve sympathy.

<comment><USER22> This isn't just about US foreign policy. Let's take a different example that removes the interventionist "bad smell" of the NK example. Let's talk peace.

E.g. Imagine A and B want to negotiate a peace treaty. They represent large and diverse constituencies. Officially, they're not talking to each other -- there is ongoing violence, and hard-liners in both the A camp and the B camp will replace the A or B negotiators if they are deemed to be too soft.

So, there's a secret summit of A and B negotiators. Publicly, neither side can budge. However, because the talks are secret, the negotiators are free to make initial concessions to get the ball rolling.

How could making those talks public possibly be a good thing? It might actually scuttle peace and result in more violence.

It's easy for rogue elements to spoil a sensitive negotiation. There is a real need for secrecy in order to have productive negotiations on sensitive topics.

<comment><USER17> You comment assume that the hardliners are wrong, and that the negotiators should talk behind their backs. Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that?

<comment><USER22> That's not the point -- it's symmetric. Replace "hardliners" with "conciliators", if you like.

The point is that what people can say publicly is often much less than what they might concede privately.

This causes deadlocks, and offers griefers the ability to scuttle publicly- made plans.

UPDATE> > Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that?

Essentially, they'll talk differently if they know everyone's listening, so that information is not as useful as you think.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: TrendYt - <AUTHOR> https://www.trendyt.co <comment><AUTHOR> With Trendyt we want to give everyone access to the best content of reddit and automatically analyze the posts they are interested in.

Our tool will save you a lot of time. Instead of scrolling through an endless stream of threads and comments just check our dashboard. We will automatically discover new trends, analyse all comments and uncover the sentiment on the most interesting topics.

We are launching a Demo today, including only 6 subreddits, to demonstrate the potential of the product and gather some interest. Once we launch the product you will be able to choose which subreddits to follow and get all stats and insights updated daily. Hope to get some feedback from the community! Thanks!</comment>


Giphy plans to build a real business - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-giphy-plans-to-build-a-real-business-by-animating-the-internet-with-gifs-2017-5 <comment><USER2> The service is cute. No doubt about it.

All the best to the team to find a way to monetize, however. Seems like the advertising route may be the most promising.

</comment><comment><USER3> Giphy's among numerous sites I've blocked at the domain level because the principle use is to create an annoyance: animations which cannot otherwise be blocked or stopped, frequently used to directly annoy those who've stated that they don't care for such things.

Aside: two of the biggest blow-ups I've seen in social media have been between those who don't, and do, like animations. Go figure.

Unless and until user tools (e.g., browsers) put this control directly in users' hands, I don't see the situation improving.

</comment><comment><USER4> Despite Giphy's broad distribution network, it doesn't seem that Gif Artists can be compensated for their labor in the way Youtube Creators can.

Nor would a watermarked Gif Ad, like the one I just saw for Netflix's "War Machine" provide much more than what amounts to CDN hosting fees for Giphy's platform. Minus any content licensing.

Hiring and developing Gif talent, building a Creators' Studio and marketing any resulting new IPs falls into the same conundrum: endusers copy, share and consume Gif images freely.

As for mobile ads, its the engagement, such as redeeming a Memorial Day promotion code for Lyft, that is monetized. Not the content.

We could hypothesize and analyze the remaining possible revenue models but unless Gifs can somehow be transmuted into some sort of cryptocurrency or other store of value, I am just having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.

How do you build Paywalls for Gifs? And aren't Snap and Insta Stories the new "micro reality entertainment" channels?

Wishing Alex and co. best of luck!

<comment><USER5> You want to use apps/mobile as much as possible to control the experience.

<comment><USER6> Giphy is mostly used to host content to be posted on third party sites. An upload app would be useful but by no means crucial, and nowhere near as trafficked as the content itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IMO Giphy has raised far too much money to ever be a viable business.

</comment><comment><USER8> Giphy employs 70 people. This I find an astonishing high number.

It also seems that they are partnered with netflix to automatically create gifs from their content; this is interesting. But what about content providers who aren't so happy about unauthorized clips being created of their content - I would have thought giphy is a copyright disaster, should owners assert their rights.

<comment><USER9> > But what about content providers who aren't so happy about unauthorized > clips

There is no way that netflix will jeopardize their distribution licenses for a few gifs. Anything that comes from it is no doubt cleared and above board.

<comment><USER10> I think they mean all the other content providers, besides Netflix, whose content is on Giphy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think advertisement and licensing/subscription are the way go along with providing a motion recognition engine. They have gifs which are basically frames of motions. Wouldn't be good to have a search engine tells you which movie this gif was based on, an anotation like genius for explaining memes and slangs?

</comment><comment><USER12> They have a search API with a public key [https://github.com/Giphy/GiphyAPI](https://github.com/Giphy/GiphyAPI) with limits. I used it in one of my apps. Pretty cool stuff.

</comment><comment><USER13> There are VC-funded startups that fulfill a semi-real need, but lack any potential to become a real business. "Advertising" isn't a business model; it's a crutch one reaches for when an existing business isn't financially sustainable on its own.

Giphy should be an open source library or app, or perhaps a community- supported site, that people would use on occasion. Expecting it to drive traffic that justifies a VC-scale investment will only dilute a generally useful service and cause it to fall by the wayside when the VCs pull out.

<comment><USER5> I mean imgur is the pioneer in this space... advertising seems like a fine business.

<comment><USER14> Imgur is not even remotely the pioneer. They're the most recent in a long line of image hosts that built up a userbase with a simple functional website, followed by sacrificing that to be able to serve ads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Go to [https://giphy.com/](https://giphy.com/) and take a look. Does this random collection of animated images give the impression of a service worth 600 million dollars? It's just fluff, it doesn't solve any real-world problem, how on earth would any VC be brave enough to invest $150m in this juvenile idea?

<comment><USER16> Isn't entertainment reason enough? And the problem they are solving is to allow others to send memes that are unique and funny or otherwise entertaining given a simple search string.

It's not sending someone to the moon, but it's also not worthless. The system itself would benefit from hard technical solutions as well. Facial recognition in gifs; understanding context in a picture... you may see it as a waste, but it may also lead to discovery some new CS techniques for these things.

I'm not necessarily saying they can show a value of 600m, but I would just dismiss the whole idea either.

<comment><USER17> Since it's integrated in Telegram as "@gif", I tried to use it many times to search for famous gifs or famous clips of some movie/series that are relevant to the conversation... 19 out of 20 I can't find it, results are irrelevant, and I have to search something like "site:imgur.com <thing>" in google images and select type: animated.

If at least this worked half of the time, I may say it is valuable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I figure they have good revenue from whatsapp integration, but can't let their business be held ransom by a large customer.

</comment><comment><USER19> I find non video gif pretty much shocking. So much bandwidth wasted. I hope they don't do that anymore.

</comment><comment><USER20> How is a business that isn't profitable and has no business model for revenue worth 600 million dollars? How are these valuations actually done?

<comment><USER21> Investor demand for shares.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Giphy is the slowest, buggiest site I sometimes have the displeasure of using. Unusable on mobile if you ever get linked to it, the search is mostly useless and results are irrelevant. Loading an actual gif takes ages.

Just giving stuff away for free and expecting to be able to slap on a business model later just seems like a recipe for failure in general, only very few companies manage to survive, let alone thrive, with that start.</comment>


Simplicity isn't simple – Delphi's design principles - <AUTHOR> http://removingalldoubt.com/programming/2015/07/23/simplicity-isnt-simple/ <comment><USER2> Oh god, I get a Proustian flashbacks to my first programming steps just by looking at that Pascal assignment operator.

Delphi was wonderful. I remember showing it to an early colleague of mine who has only done C++ and he insisted that it had to be an interpreted language - because compile times were (what he thought to be) simply impossibly short.

<comment><USER3> C++ is a pretty low bar, to be honest. But yeah Delphi was awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "I don't mind requiring two lines of code to accomplish what could be accomplished in one line if I can understand both lines." \-- is very true. Even though I don't agree with some of the other things he says. I am not a fan of properties and I like the . vs -> difference which immediately tells you whether something is a pointer. And the notion that you can have the language with pointers and hide if rom the user, I find that questionable.

<comment><USER5> perhaps it's less of an issue in delphi (and pascal) since parameters that change in procedures have the var keyword?

In practice it doesn't seem to cause issues since pretty well every thing is a pointer, the only time it causes a problem is if you're using records. The compiler does catch this but, yes, in this case it is sub optimal. It's a trade off I suppose - 95-99.9% of the time your using classes so the '.' is everywhere rather than ->.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting - I've always thought Delphi was easier to use than many other systems, but could never put my finger on why. It seems they thought about it a lot at the beginning in a hundred little ways.</comment>


Dad hacks Donkey Kong for his daughter; Pauline now saves Mario - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/dad-hacks-donkey-kong-for-his-daughter-princess-pauline-now-saves-mario/ <comment><USER3> I will harp on about the importance of code literacy and open source / free software till the cows come home but this is the best example I know:

We would never vote up a article where "father writes bedtime story for daughter, Sleeping Prince rescued by Princess". Because it is commonplace because literacy is commonplace, as are pens and paper commonplace and as are the legal frameworks to be allowed to alter the published version.

In software world only the pen and paper analogy are commonplace. We need to change that

<comment><USER4> Why do people insist on foisting "software literacy" on the general populace? In terms of skills, financial planning, cooking, interpersonal skills are all more essential than reading and writing code.

The writing analogy is off anyways: not everyone can write very well. People would upvote -and buy- a children's story by, say, neil gaiman. This is not the equivalent of a throwaway story made up on the spot.

<comment><USER5> The upvote question is easy to answer -- this is _Hacker News_. Of course we upvote programming. And I agree with the point about writing. And I think we shouldn't read "everyone needs programming literacy" from hacking a ROM any more than we should read "everyone needs to know woodworking" from "here's a cool piece of furniture I built for my daughter."

But I will try to answer the question about foisting software literacy, since you seem to be questioning the larger trend. The question to ask here is, what do you think the skills economy will look like in 15 years? Looking casually at the trends, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that software is eating the world. My friends in scientific research have either learned to code or are hobbled by their inability to do so. Financial institutions are increasingly just software companies with some domain expertise; I know finance people who can't get jobs because--to simplify a bit--they don't know SQL. Many non-technical office workers I know interact with a computer on some sort of programmatic level (e.g. Excel macros) and almost all of them would benefit enormously from programming literacy to help them in that. And all of that is trending upwards quickly; that's why programmers are in such high demand.

Cooking is great and an important personal skill, but it's only an _essential_ skill for chefs, whereas if you can't code, you might become the equivalent of the guy who can't use email in today's office environment. So to me, it's a question of what the world's going to look like in the future, not a question of what's most practical around the house. Forecasting the future is hard and it's an interesting debate--there are all sorts of reasons software might be less important than we might guess, and of course software people are predisposed to think software will be super valuable. But I think it's the right way to frame the discussion: if software runs the world, you really need to know it. If it doesn't, you don't.

I'm not accusing you of this because I don't know you at all and your comment doesn't suggest it, but I hear a little bit of insider entitlement in a lot of programmers' arguments against increased software literacy. "I don't want all those other people jumping in and pretending they're software engineers too. The future belongs to the select few, which happens to include me. Leave software to the pros!" It's seems absurd to me that programmers don't want more people to understand the ins-and-outs of their profession...unless they feel threatened by such a thing. There's something very fishy about telling people who don't code, "Oh, yeah, don't do what I do. Learn to cook instead." Are you sure we're not just trying to keep all the marbles?

<comment><USER4> Personally I have no horse in the coding-skills race; I really enjoy problem solving and architecting systems more than writing the code itself. If there were lots of commodity coders, I could direct and manage them and enjoy myself plenty ;)

From the 'software is eating the world' perspective, I see increased _use_ of software, but not increased production in unconventional areas. If you look at the progression of home computers, we've gone from booting directly into BASIC, to an iPad, where you really can't do any development. The slow march to 'appification', and the trend of taking away customization and development tools from consumer-grade products makes me think that while software is becoming more important, average people need (and want) to code less and less.

It's definitely a programmer's perspective to say that any knowledge industry (like finance) is just software + domain knowledge. Someone in that industry would approach it from the other end, and say that they can write a req and get some commodity software to solve their problem from some developer half- way around the world. This is where I think the industry is going: not universal programming literacy, but a more stratified culture where 'commodity' development is it's own discipline.

Consider the ease with which any consultant can knock together a CRUD Rails app with some business logic the client specifies. We've removed a ton of overhead and boilerplate, and lowered the barrier to entry tremendously. As time goes on, and development technology advances, I see software development/engineering and computer science diverging more and more. At some point, development might be an apprenticeship or more 'hands-on' education, to learn the existing patterns and practices.

In short, development will become a commodity, but via an emerging class of commodity developers who can handle 95% of client requests. There will still be people who do hard things, and hack in their spare time, and they'll make things better for everyone. But they'll stay in the minority, and development will stay out of reach for people who aren't explicitly 'developers'.

<comment><USER6> Well here is someone "in the industry", who completely agrees with the need for coding literacy. I can program, but I'm not a "programmer" by any means, and it's clear to see in whatever client I work with (I'm a Big 4 Management Consultant, sorry), coding skills are becoming increasingly relevant. Macro skills are the tip of the iceberg, some industries such as investment banking and engineering practically require programming skills to find a job, as the previous poster stated. Sure they can write the requirements for an application, but mostly these are not applications, these are ad-hoc, on the fly, limited use models that need to be made and altered in time with market fluctuations or environmental conditions - far quicker than monolithic IT departments can respond (even with agile work teams).

I don't really care which way you phrase it, whether you see the programming as incidental or the job function as incidental is just a matter of perspective. The fact is, programming (or at least "soft" programming skills such as VB and SQL) are becoming increasingly essential for many of the top tier jobs in today's economy. Don't want to learn programming? No problem - I'll find a few million Indians who do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reposting and responding to a dead comment by lexarchy:

\--

> _This is a clever hack, but I question the motives of both the father and > Ars Technica. Must we erase—or invert—all aspects of yin and yang, simply to > appease the gods of equality?_

 _You may have heard the French phrase vive la différence, which translates as "long live the difference", but do you know what it refers to? It means "let's celebrate the differences between the sexes." Nowadays it seems we are only allowed to celebrate their sameness, or their inversion. This makes me sad._

 _Vive la différence!_

\--

This kind of put into words an odd feeling I was having about the whole "war of the sexes" vibe that this seems to generate. I'm not sure the motives of the father or the site need questioned at all - it's a thoughtful gift to his daughter, and a very clever hack at that. Certainly worth covering in any case.

What I don't understand is how one of the most common storytelling tropes in history (we're talking Shakespeare and then some) has suddenly become uncool to use, or why we're making a harmless part of videogame history a political and social justice issue.

<comment><USER8> I think it's pretty normal if you are tired of the constant portrayal of women as weak, helpless and passive in certain media.

What's so wrong with calling out lazy storytelling based on dumb stereotypes? How can you even have a problem with that?

I also like how you just declare something harmless. Why, exactly? It's a part of video game history that lives on and is anything but harmless.

Calling out crap is wrong – why exactly? Or is the portrayal of women as weak, helpless and passive – especially in a world where this is a popular stereotype – not crap?

Nobody wants to burn cartridges or rewrite history or ban old games. People (for the most part) don't even demonize anyone for this or blame anyone for acting maliciously. Is pointing something out (or privately doing something about it) really such a big deal?

I really don't get contrarians like you. Your arguments make no sense at all. (Except if you believe that women really are naturally weak, helpless and passive, i.e. hold sexist beliefs.)

<comment><USER9> First, women _are_ smaller and weaker than men, on average, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes reality has a conservative bias, you know? (But it would be more accurate to say that traditional ideas often have some basis in reality.)

Second, I don't see why you have to demean all the men and women who are weak and passive. Their lives are perfectly worthwhile too, and they have something to contribute other than brawn and testosterone.

Third, boys embraced video games as a pastime when most girls thought it was stupid crap for loser nerds. I think it's great that many more girls are into video games now, and that all the big companies want to make money by selling video games to girls. But don't act as if the large back catalog of boy- oriented games is some sort of social injustice. When the first GI Joe doll for boys (aka "action figure") came out, did people start whining because almost all existing dolls were designed for girls? No.

Fourth, there are many girls (but also boys) that would be better served by something other than a simple sprite swap on the same action game idea. But your ridiculously limited ideas of what's good and valuable (big, strong, person! Death to enemies! Woe be the weak!) would leave them high and dry.

<comment><USER10> 1) Its not the physically smaller or weaker part that is the problem - <USER2> often really do women need men to come rescue them? Is it any more than men needing women to rescue them? Why then are most of the video games, even the puzzle based ones where brains not brawn are the deciding factor, all about saving the women? It seems to me that there is certainly a curious imbalance there.

2) Strawman - parent is not demeaning the "weak and passive" so much as pointing out that a lot of video games present a wide variety of male types, but only the weak and passive female type. This is strange. The women I know seem to fall on a scale ranging from weak and passive to "alpha as fuck", just like the men.

3) Goalpost moving, true scotsman, and strawman rolled up into one: There is no argument here about orienting the games toward a gender, only the portrayal of genders within the games. If you think they are the same, then there is perhaps something else going on as well... basically there is some sort of assumption that games oriented towards boys should only portray men strongly. Which is weird, because how the hell would it appeal less to boys if some of the characters were strong women?

4) Actually a good point. Unfortunately mixed up in some sort of strawman - you are angry that people would like to see strong female characters in action games, so you are accusing the parent of only wanting action gams for kids - which is not evident in that post - and therefore hurting the chance for girls (who apparently can't like action games) to get good games for them. (I'm guessing that your conservative basis in reality suggests that means they need games about vacuuming, cooking and ponies).

<comment><USER11> (going to continue the above structured 4 bullet points)

1) Stories are today more homogeneous then ever before. People used to joke that you could set your clock to a james bond movies, and know what plot, what characters and what events will unfold. Then other movies copied it, and they too could be set to that same clock. Asking for originality is what we consumers should do but it is not what sends money to the bank if you are a producer. I would not know how we even could began fixing this.

2) video games do not present a wide variety of male types. Since when did you see a undecisive, meek, emotional erratic male protagonist? How often is he a gear of wars massive hulk made of 99% muscles, with so low base sounding voice that he likely has a serious sickness in the throat? How often doesnt he act like an emotionalless robot, creating a flood of corpses and steals anything that's not nailed down?

3) while I am not a game developer, I doubt that having strong women would lower the numbers of sales to boys. I don't see anyone arguing this. I do however think that the industry is lazy, and is not going to change their products if they don't have to. Movie producers and game producers are in this aspect very similar, and focus on what ever sold the most yesterday. In media, only books tend to have reached a level of diversity that we as a society is happy with.

4) I don't think the commenter is angry. That would imply intent in a very few written lines. I also think you are missing the point. Stories are complicated, and good stories require more than simple resprite work or pronounce changes. This goes same for making games that present role models for boys as well as girls.

<comment><USER12> _Stories are today more homogeneous then ever before._

They are? On what do you base that?

<comment><USER11> Anecdotal evidence on movies and games :). Mostly based on reviews.

StarCraft II was one of the most silliest examples of this. The characters are one-dimensional to the point of being laughable. This is a game which had almost unlimited budget, and they just fail horrible at having an original story. I dare people to watch the cinematics say that the male roles are typical of the human male population.

But the more telling part, is that I would have to dig into the indy scene if I even wanted a bit originality in the story. I can't find a single AAA game that have original and well fleshed out characters, and a interesting story. At best, one would have to look at the walking dead which copies that from the TV-show.

Movies... pre-2000, we had a bunch of james bond copies. After that, we got the expendable? The new die hard? Any of the teenage vampire movies?

The one with good story and good character looks to be mostly remakes of older movies or comic/book made-movie, or animations. Wreck-It Ralph is a clear example of good characters.

<comment><USER12> It's not that most current AAA games or movies are good, it's just that I think we tend to see past ones with rose colored glasses, and to compare best of "the past" (decades) with "the present" (a few years), which is clearly unbalanced.

I was never a big fan of playing games for their stories or characters; I value gameplay over almost everything, preferring mindless fun (e.g. Metal Slug) or multiplayer games, but Portal 1 & 2 are certainly better than most of the big budget games I remember playing.

As for movies since the 2000, sure you have crap like those, but you also have decent movies like (from the top of my head) the Coen brothers', the Eternal Sunshine, Mulholland Drive, Children of Men or Crash. Were the previous decades much better? I don't think so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Donkey Kong was highlighted as one of the first examples of Nintendo's overuse* of the "Damsel in Distress" trope in the first episode of Anita Sarkeesian's series on the portrayal of women in video games: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q>

Very cool to see a parent help try to correct that for their kid as they introduce them to video games.

*changed wording for clarity

<comment><USER7> Overused? This is the first Nintendo game that _ever_ used that trope. Mario wasn't even called Mario before this point, and there was no princess. It was just Jumpman (renamed to Mario starting with this very game, who got his name from one of Nintendo's landlords at the time), Pauline (who got her name from the wife of an employee, but just "Lady" in the J version), and Donkey Kong.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure what you're taking exception to: I said it was one of the first examples (wasn't sure if it was _the_ first, so thanks for clarifying that).

While in the video Sarkeesian goes through its overuse in general as mturmon mentioned, Nintendo did go on to overuse it themselves, with Donkey Kong being the first of many times Nintendo went to that well. The linked video goes through several examples.

<comment><USER7> It's kind of hard to overuse something the first time you do it...

That said, I think that the "overuse" and the reasons for it in this case is in the mind of the beholder. Are we just calling this into question because it's now hip to call anything and everything to question on the grounds of some percieved slight to gender "equality"? Or are we having a larger conversation about the overuse of specific tropes in general in media?

<comment><USER13> I didn't say Nintendo, at the time Donkey Kong was created, had already overused the "damsel in distress" trope. What I said was of the set of games Nintendo has developed or published in the past 30-odd years that ostensibly demonstrate their overuse of the "damsel in distress" trope, Donkey Kong was the first.

<comment><USER7> Ah, gotcha. I just misread the first sentence.

<comment><USER13> Ah, I can see how it could be misread. I adjusted the wording from "Nintendo overusing" to "Nintendo's overuse of" to clarify that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Cool hack, great dad, etc.

However, I can't help but point out that one of the most popular video games of the moment, Tomb Raider, has a female protagonist, and hordes (brutish, sexist hordes!) of male gamers are playing it without issue.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing to learn to play as a character that is not exactly like you.

<comment><USER14> Tomb Raider has it's own history with sexism. Nearly no athletic women have a chest like Lara Croft. And I am not referring to chest muscles, which are relevant to an action hero.

<comment><USER9> I'm talking about the new TR that just came out. Many things have changed since the original.

<comment><USER15> One thing that certainly changed is that more women are buying video games - potential clients, that might dislike to control the anatomic equivalent of a sex doll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> :)

Reminds me of the "Dad gives Link a sex change" story from last year for Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker.

[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/i-am-no-man-for- zelda-...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/11/i-am-no-man-for-zelda- playing-daughter-dad-gives-link-a-sex-change/)

</comment><comment><USER17> My first thought on this was, "Awesome!" And then my second thought was, "Could this guy go to jail for that?"

It's so sad that a guy doing something as innocent as this could be faced with fines or prison because our legal system is so screwed up.

<comment><USER18> How could this be illegal? He's not redistributing the work.

<comment><USER19> If dumping the ROM required him to work around something considered "copy protection" by the manufacturer, he could go to jail for DMCA violation.

In the land of the free, at least.

<comment><USER20> This is a ROM for an arcade game. It's highly unlikely to be much DRM. Additionally he might not be in the USA.

<comment><USER21> Anti-circumvention measures are baked into laws in may territories.

(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention>)

While the ROM might not have much DRM some cases suggest that tools for ripping ROMs, and tools that allow playing of modified ROMs on a console, are probably illegal. (See, for example, the MrModChips cases in the UK.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm going to break out of hacker mind and say that this guy should get the Nerd Dad of the year award.

</comment><comment><USER23> I like the implication in the hack that the pink umbrella and handbag now belong to Mario. Two hits against gender stereotypes!

</comment><comment><USER24> He seems to have moved the location of the first hammer too. :/

</comment><comment><USER25> Dad of all/only girls here. Dying to get a hold of this rom. Hoping the author will post it and that Nintendo won't give him a hard time about his homebrew, considering the attention it is bringing Donkey Kong and Nintendo.

<comment><USER26> I believe posting the ROM would be ilegal. To share ROM mods, people usually share patches that can be applied with a certain program (like a binary diff, I'd assume).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> About bloody time. I am so sick of female characters having no agency.

Seriously no guy is going to be upset if the beautiful girl knows how to shoot a gun. Resident Evil was/is a monster succes.

</comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone know what tool you use to do such thing?

<comment><USER13> It's mentioned in the article; Tile Layer Pro: [http://www.zophar.net/utilities/graphutil/tile-layer- pro.htm...](http://www.zophar.net/utilities/graphutil/tile-layer-pro.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> <http://pinterest.com/pin/68117013083862439/>

</comment><comment><USER30> Cool hack, happy daughter. What's not to like? Oh, hello patriarchy. Now I understand sinfest better.

</comment><comment><USER31> I like how she is collecting her stuff along the way to help out Mario.

</comment><comment><USER32> Neat. A very thoughtful gift.

</comment><comment><USER33> Great dad

</comment><comment><USER14> Better, she should save Donkey Kong from Mario, to address the real issue of animals enslaved by people. The reverse doesn't really happen.

<comment><USER34> No, no, you have Donkey Kong save Mario from Pauline! Wait....

<comment><USER35> Add a Braid-like twist ending and I think you've got something!</comment></comment></comment>


Xi Jinping says Taiwan "must and will be" reunited with China - happy-go-lucky https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46733174 <comment><AUTHOR> The "our government represents ALL of China" that both the PRC and ROC gov'ts proclaimed is/was a mistake. China and Taiwan are in practice and reality now two countries, and the people in each don't benefit from the saber rattling.

It would be the same as North or South Korea being the only "Korea" recognized by other governments or UN.

<comment><USER2> Taiwan isn't a member of the UN and is officially recognized by only 16 countries as the most fear pissing off China.

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

They lost their UN seat in 1971 and haven't been able to regain it since.

With China's influence especially in Africa and the Middle East growing there is less and less chance of Taiwan being recognized as an independent country without a global conflict or a massive political shift in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I used to believe China could easily swallow Taiwan in military conflict, but the actual numbers are surprising considering their relative landmasses. Taiwan is not such an easy target to overthrow, and I doubt they'd lay down without a fight.

I found this article to be particularly enlightening:

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war- wi...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-with-china/)

<comment><USER4> Tangent: 'lay' is transitive and requires an object e.g. 'lay themselves down'

Otherwise use intransitive 'lie' e.g. lie down without a fight.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, IntelliSense!

/s of course, I actually learned from the parent comment lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sounds like empty rhetoric to distract the population from economic slowdown, trade war with US and general negative sentiments related to China both internally and externally.

<comment><USER7> On the other hand, most armed conflicts are preceded by rhetoric of some kind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Taiwan has some leading tech companies, most notably TSMC who fabricate a huge portion of all ICs (chips) in the world. China has been investing a lot in building up it's own fabs, with some success - but still well behind TSMC. I wonder is part of this goal to take a strangle-hold on the world's technology manufacturing?

<comment><USER9> Yes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025)

Helped along by consulting from McKinsey, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Right. Chinese policy regarding Taiwan hasn't changed then. Not really news.

<comment><USER11> Never a dull moment to talk about the twilight zone that is Greater China

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would be happy to have Taiwan rule China.

<comment><USER13> >> _I would be happy to have Taiwan rule China._

So convince the Chinese in mainland China and we can solve this without a shot being fired. Boeing etc will profit from this but Taiwan isn't going anywhere. Eventually a pro-China party will win and via...

I wonder if USA has a way to brick the weapons we sold /are /will be selling to Taiwan if China takes over? No doubt Chinese spies are in all branches of Taiwan politics and military.

<comment><USER14> Pro-Bejing parties are now the majority of the legislative in Hong Kong. It's only a matter of time before the same happens in Taiwan and they fall under the S.A.R system.

The fact that the KMT are considered China-friendly is hilarious considering the history of the Republic of China.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-politics/taiwan- re...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-taiwan-politics/taiwan-rebukes- ruling-party-emboldens-china-friendly-opposition-idUSKCN1NU01L)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does anyone know the background here. Why is it that the Chinese government or people want to rule Taiwan as much as they appear to?

<comment><USER16> ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan. At the time (1949-onward), America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China, but only intervened to protect them in the Taiwan strait. You can simply read more detail on Wikipedia, etc(1). Then after Mao won control of China, he went on to oversee arguably the manslaughter and murder of more people than any other tyrant in history.

1-[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_retreat_to...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_retreat_to_Taiwan)

<comment><USER17> > ROC (Taiwan) is the defacto legitimate government of China. They were > defeated in war by communist forces and fled to Taiwan.

They were defeated, and yet still considered the "defacto legitimate government of China"? How does that work? I would think very few people consider the ROC the "legitimate" government of Mainland China.

> America acknowledged ROC as the legitimate government of China

Why is this relevant?

<comment><USER16> I'm just stating what the historical facts are. Even the UN charter still to this day lists ROC as the legitimate government of China, but in the 70s they started letting the PRC sit in that seat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It'll happen eventually, and likely without force. Taiwan (like HK) enjoyed relative economic success versus China because of their ties with the west, beneficial strategic location and relatively small population. Now that China's an economic superpower, still growing and liberalizing (albeit slowly), theres less reasons for Taiwan to oppose reunification. I doubt it'll happen in the next decade, but it likely will within 50 years.

<comment><USER19> I don't know much about Chinese people's mindsets, but keep in mind that the Scottish and UK independence referendums were split about 50/50\. Scotland is 5 million people, the UK is 65 million. A Taiwan/China unification makes as much sense to me as Canada merging with the United States.

<comment><USER18> Canada is ideologically quite separate from the US. Our histories diverged quite early, and we have fundamentally different ideas concerning governance. Linguistically and ethnically there's differences too.

China and Taiwan both believe in only one China, and both believe in reunification, albeit with differing ideas on how to accomplish it (Taiwan still calls itself the Republic of China).

<comment><USER20> I am not even sure you really meant it or you are trolling, but if you really believe what you wrote, I suggest you read up more about Hong Kong and Taiwan past and current status.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One country, two systems - so the same as Hong Kong?

<comment><USER12> Not remotely. Hong Kong was only leased from China.

<comment><USER10> Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded in perpetuity by the Qing Dynasty to the British Crown. It was only the New Territories that were leased, for 99 years beginning in 1898.

However, it was agreed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 to return all of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty upon expiration of the New Territories lease on July 1, 1997.

<comment><USER13> what ifs...would have China eventually attacked Hong Kong, like Argentina did to Falklands Islands?

NATO doesn't cover faraway islands...

<comment><USER22> The parts of Hong Kong that were owned, and not leased, have basically no infrastructure to support people's lives. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon are basicslly residential and commercial only - there is no agriculture and the majority of the water and electricity comes from China and the New Territories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You gotta figure if the Chinese Politburo handicaps each US president on the odds of no US military response to a forceful re-unification attempt Trump is definitely going to be their horse.

Happy New Year, cross your fingers 2019 doesn't go down in history books as the start of World War 3 :)

<comment><USER24> Can't think of any recent US President that would start a war with China over Taiwan. China will take Taiwan when it feels like it.

<comment><USER25> A US President will be unlikely to (voluntarily) start a war with China directly, but the US and Taiwan stand to mutually benefit from the US beefing up its military aid to Taiwan (the US because Taiwan is a massive allied economy that's enough of a threat to China for China to want to assert control, and Taiwan because they probably don't want to be steamrolled by a dictatorship).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there a "Berlin Wall" between Taiwan and China?

<comment><USER27> 70 miles of strait?

<comment><USER5> doesn't it seem to be more effective than a wall actually?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> We will soon notice whether the populist West will support government with the consent of the governed or stand by while Taiwan is thrown under the bus.

The history of Crimea indicates that Taiwan's only hope is to aggresively apply violence as necessary for its independence.

<comment><USER29> > We will soon notice whether the populist West will support government with > the consent of the governed or stand by while Taiwan is thrown under the > bus.

That's unfair, I think. There's a huge gap between "I don't agree with what's happening" and "I'm willing to risk nuclear war defending this cause".

<comment><USER30> But the west didn't just agree to risk nuclear war defending Crimea, the west actually agreed to _cause_ nuclear war to defend Crimea, if necessary:

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

Hell, Russia went as far as to actually raise the issue in the UN general assembly that the west hasn't lived up to it's obligations under that treaty.

So not only has the west proved it won't defend anyone, it has shown no diplomatic assurances of western states (or at least of the US, UK, France and China, and of course of the United Nations) are of any value whatsoever to smaller countries.

The only open tactic remaining is for all states that fear territorial annexation is to develop first strike capability with nuclear weapons. If you don't have that, you're at the mercy of Russia, and frankly, China and any western country. If one of them decides to attack, no help will be forthcoming, not _even_ a UN security council protest.

All the comments here forget one very basic thing: if you aren't willing to serve in a war with China, you don't recognize Taiwan sovereignty. It doesn't take 2 countries to go to war, after all, it only takes one, and China is.

<comment><USER31> > But the west didn't just agree to risk nuclear war defending Crimea, the > west actually agreed to cause nuclear war to defend Crimea, if necessary:

No, it didn't; the _only_ thing Western powers (as well as Russia!) promised (per your own source) to do to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine was "Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action". Which the Western Powers did (Russia, of course, vetoed the action supported by 13 of 15 UNSC members.)

They did not promise to use military force, much less nuclear arms—especially not outside of the context of UN action—in the event of an attack.

Now, admittedly, given that any problem any of states protected by the Budapest Memorandum would face would almost certainly also involve a deadlock between permanent UNSC members who were signatories of the agreements, it should probably have been an obvious critical defect that there was no fallback position besides mutual consultation in the event of UNSC deadlock; particularly, the protected states could have demanded that the guaranteeing states each individually committed also to seek UNGA action under the Uniting for Peace (A/RES/377A) umbrella in the event of UNSC deadlock.

> Hell, Russia went as far as to actually raise the issue in the UN general > assembly that the west hasn't lived up to it's obligations under that > treaty.

Different obligations than the (weak tea) defensive one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Xi should consider the effect of vastly reduced foreign trade after an attempt to take Taiwan by force.

</comment><comment><USER16> All of my responses got what seems like an equal number of downvotes (4) sometime in the last hour, and this thread got ejected from the front page well over an hour before this happened.

Smells like the product of small little online brigaide.

<comment><USER32> -4 is the lower limit that a comment can be downvoted to, so the fact that they're all the same isn't particularly telling.

<comment><USER16> They were all positive, and each reduced by 4 points. Currently the lowest sits at -1.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should we or should we not hire a developer evangelist for our product? - <AUTHOR> We've been running Snipcart, our developer-first e-commerce startup, for three years now. Growth is organic, fueled by content & a bit of SEO. Inspired by the B2D success tales of Twilio/Stripe, we're also strongly considering hiring a developer evangelist.<p>At what stage should a SaaS consider hiring a dev evangelist? Do you think it's really a key to B2D success? <comment><USER2> If you already have an existing user who is perfect for the role, then there is a solid opportunity. On the other hand, hiring via "help wanted" means that the new person has to be brought up to speed on the technical details and educated on the history of the project.

The third alternative is to shift roles within the company and hire to fill gaps created by shifting roles.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> We hadn't considered bringing a user in the loop; clever advice. We'll keep this in mind as we move forward in our decision process. Cheers!</comment></comment>


Amish Paradise - <AUTHOR> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080328_004611.html <comment><USER2> I thought this was going to be a link to Devil's Playground which is MUCH more interesting than some Cringley column

<http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/amish/>

</comment><comment><USER3> not much beef but a valid point of view. of more interest is i read this straight after pg's heirachy of comments essay - hilarious! ;-)</comment>


US inquiry into high-tech hiring - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/technology/companies/03trust.html

<comment><USER2> I know people who have been actively recruited from one large high-tech company to another, so I don't personally put much stock in this...

<comment><USER3> While working at a large "high-tech" firm "X" (not listed in the article, but well-known), in 2007 I was approached through by a recruiter from one of the firms "Y" listed. After my third phone interview everything went silent. Emails stopped, phone calls not returned.

Confused, if the firm decided to not pursue me, I at least wanted closure. A friend of mine had a friend in firm "Y" recruiting and asked about my situation. The feedback was to the affect of exactly what the DOJ seems to be investigating that "Y" is not currently recruiting employees of "X".</comment></comment>


Compare PDFs with DiffPDF in Ubuntu Linux, Debian, Fedora and Other Derivatives - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxandubuntu.com/home/compare-pdf-files-with-diffpdf-in-ubuntu-linux-debian-fedora-other-derivatives

<comment><USER2> It looks like pure magic. Older versions was released under GPL2 (though the copyright notice contains "All rights reserved" too, tough call), but newer versions are under a restrictive license.

I wonder how well it works for equations.

[http://www.qtrac.eu/diffpdf-foss.html](http://www.qtrac.eu/diffpdf-foss.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> Note that if you are working on a latex document you can use latexdiff.</comment>


What do you mean, you don't like IE6? Really? - <AUTHOR> http://remy.tumblr.com/post/8334086394/what-do-you-mean-you-dont-like-ie6-really

<comment><USER2> Oh I don't know...sometimes I think IE6 is a good example of why slow-moving companies can fail and startups can eat their lunch. If you don't identify and fix ingrained problems, you'll eventually be screwed.

I don't care if lots of companies keep overpaying to keep IE6 viable, or if it's challenging work done by large teams. Just because a job exists doesn't mean that job is very useful, _especially to the economy as a whole_.

If your talented people are actually doing interesting work, they'll be building skills that are more likely to apply to a variety of problems; they will probably be more energized too, and willing to stick with your company. Each country will also benefit, because talent pools will encourage companies to invest in certain areas instead of having people jump ship to wherever the next IE6 fire has been set (only to eventually be outsourced completely).

Companies _could_ be spending all this money on things that actually make new and interesting products.

You don't need to look much further than an app store to see what can be achieved in a few months. It's that kind of developer potential that is currently being wasted on crap like IE6 workarounds.</comment>


Freebie: Facebook Timeline .psd mockup - Obsessive care in every single pixel ;) - <AUTHOR> http://caffeinalab.com/gui_facebooktimeline

<comment><USER2> Of course, feedbacks are very welcome! :)</comment>


Ask HN: Does a front-end JavaScript framework impact team structure / behavior? - <AUTHOR>

Our team is going to start using AngularJs and I'm keen to understand what (if any) impacts these frameworks could have on the team and how best to deal with them.
I'm pretty confident there will be learning curve to deal with, but also potentially more separation of skills.
Great to understand people's experiences and how to best organise the team and dev process to better use these frameworks. <comment><USER2> It definitely has some impact. From my [limited] experience it seems you'll need one person to really deeply understand Angular to be your team guru and Angular advocate. Angular might take a bit to grasp. If you'll have every teammate only sort-of know what's going on it will create a lot of trouble. That's surely not exclusive to Angular but from what I experienced it's easier to get away with nasty hacks in other frameworks. Did all team members agree to use it? My primary concern would be how each team member will like it, especially if they have prior front-end dev experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point about getting a guru. We are all a bit new to it, but a good friend of mine is a guru and will help training. But this strategy has its risks. Not everyone was fully supportive, particularly a person who works mainly on back- end. Perhaps we've been a bit too directive and might need to get more support first

<comment><USER3> Definitely need one person intimate with the framework or they'll be a lot of mistakes made along the way. The backend guy (if he's not working on FE) should just be building an API for the Service/HTTP calls. He should have a very easy time. There is a lot of communication between the BE dev and FE dev on Models though. We'd usually have our FE guys implement a mock model for testing and implement it in (at the time) C#.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> this will have a high impact on the complete dev process ( at least in the beginning ).

I cannot really offer exact things you can use , but I can share some insights , as we are also in a similar situation.

As you have mentioned that its Angular.js project , I am assuming you will have an internal API , make sure there is a clear API Doc .

For inspiration :

[https://github.com/wordnik/swagger-spec](https://github.com/wordnik/swagger- spec)

[http://developer.wordnik.com/docs.html#!/](http://developer.wordnik.com/docs.html#!/)

You really cannot expect a backend developer to learn Angular.js just like that.

I hear this a lot, "I have completed the back end work and waiting for the front end guys to do it" .( can be the other way also , but they can always use mocks ). This is where proper planning has to be done.

it will be good to have a generalist who can contribute to both the front end and back end.

will try to add more info after a while .

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I have been worried that it could divide our team a bit - front-end vs back-end, which I'm keen to avoid. I like the idea of having a generalist that can help build that bridge. Thanks!</comment></comment>