Atlanta to San Francisco: What I Learned Moving Cross-Country - <AUTHOR> http://paulstamatiou.com/atlanta-to-san-francisco-moving-cross-country <comment><USER2> I've moved around a lot, but bigger distances (Asia, a lot within Europe Europe, Africa), and one thing I've noticed is that the more you move, the more you abstract away the particular details of the place and focus on a start of bigger picture.

For example, if I move now, I'd focus on food (supermarkets, restaurants) and transport, and once I have understood, I'd be basically comfortable already, and I'd just let the gaps like neighbourhood and so on fill themselves out automatically.

It's a bit sad in a way - that sense of seeing something new and unexpected is now lost to me. All my recent travels are just a variation on something I've seen before, even if to supposedly exotic places.

<comment><USER3> I noticed the same pattern as I've been moving around the last few years.

Transportation is huge -- there was a big difference for me moving even just two metro stops farther from my job in Paris.

Jonah Lehrer wrote a post on this a while ago: <http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/03/commuting.php>

        According to the calculations of Frey and Stutzer, a person with a one-hour commute
        has to earn 40 percent more money to be as satisfied with life as someone who walks to
        the office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Its always interesting to me to see people's reactions when moving from poorly planned sprawling cities to some of the better planned more organically laid out cities in the US (DC, NY, Chicago, Portland, SF, etc) your quality of life changes drastically when you get to leave the car behind and walk around or just hop on efficient public transit and go anywhere you want.

I'm moving from the east coast to Seattle this week and I'm most excited about the idea of crossing a continent. Its amazing how our mind can underestimate the size of the US and how few and far between chances to take a true cross country road trip are.

<comment><USER5> I could not agree more. I've taken Amtrak's Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle and Portland several times and each time the size of the US was simply awesome.

I highly recommend doing it. In the fall and winter the cross country ticket is $170 each way and if you upgrade to a roomette, $300 each way (meals included).

Sitting for a dinner chat with a different group for 3 nights in a row + staring out the window at Glacier National Park is definitely worth the cost.

<comment><USER6> You can thank me for subsidizing that low cost with my Boston - NYC trips which cost well over $100 each way. Often you can fly from Boston to LaGuardia for less than the train. High fares on the east coast routes subsidize those cheap cross country "named" trains.

Pro tip: Never buy a ticket on a named train i.e. "Empire Builder", "Vermonter" when just trying to get between cities - they are frequently many hours late.

Oh, and that Verizon wireless commercial that shows a guy spotting a good looking girl already on a train and he quickly changes his ticket using his smart phone; that can't be done, not even with a voice call. To change an Amtrak ticket you have to physically take the ticket to a ticket window.

Just about every time I take Amtrak I get pissed-off by the high cost and indifferent service.

<comment><USER5> > You can thank me for subsidizing that low cost with my Boston - NYC trips > which cost well over $100 each way. Often you can fly from Boston to > LaGuardia for less than the train. High fares on the east coast routes > subsidize those cheap cross country "named" trains.

Thanks, but federal and state tax dollars are also a major subsidy source (especially on the Empire Builder which is one of the main sources of tourists for Idaho/Wyoming/etc.).

> Pro tip: Never buy a ticket on a named train i.e. "Empire Builder", > "Vermonter" when just trying to get between cities - they are frequently > many hours late.

You're right, but they've been getting better. Especially since winter, when the weather wreaked havoc on the system. See <http://www.trainweb.org/capt/AmtrakMapsForward.html> for "real time" calculated location of the trains and how late they are.

> Oh, and that Verizon wireless commercial that shows a guy spotting a good > looking girl already on a train and he quickly changes his ticket using his > smart phone; that can't be done, not even with a voice call. To change an > Amtrak ticket you have to physically take the ticket to a ticket window.

I've changed tickets several times over the phone and online. They ask you to go to the counter to verify ID, but if you swipe your card at the FasTrak station you can get the new ticket printed just fine.

> Just about every time I take Amtrak I get pissed-off by the high cost and > indifferent service.

I've had the exact opposite experience. On the Empire Builder, the staff is always courteous (even to unruly passengers) and is genuinely interested in the wellbeing of the passengers. I've made friends with some of the workers at the smaller Amtrak stations along the EB route -- they make for great conversation when you're waiting for the train.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've found the public-transit comparison decidedly more mixed than a clear "SF wins". Admittedly, I lived in midtown in Atlanta, and mostly went to other places that have good subway service: Decatur, downtown, Buckhead, the airport, etc. To get to other places, the buses are kind of lame, but I wouldn't say they're any more lame than Muni's terrible buses. I did have a car, but I rarely drove; probably once every few weeks, mostly to visit friends who lived in the suburbs. In SF, meanwhile, the city is _geographically tiny_ and yet still somehow cannot run a decent public-transit system. I can _jog_ from the Richmond or Sunset to Caltrain faster than Muni can get me there.

I will say that the Bay Area as a whole does suburban commuter rail better, because of BART and Caltrain. MARTA has a little of it, but it doesn't extend nearly as far outside the urban core as BART and Caltrain do. Though do note that if you plan to visit the Valley, there are plenty of places that aren't that easy to get to via Caltrain.

<comment><USER8> I would say the main deficiency with MARTA's buses is frequency, not the number of options. MUNI's buses run way more frequently I've found when visiting SF.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. MUNI (SF's bus service) is by many measures irresponsible, incompetent, and corrupt. It even runs a late a lot. But the density of the city simply creates such a high frequency of buses, and coverage of routes, that it results in a very practical, pragmatic service to use. Even really well off people often don't have cars in SF just because having a car is more of a hassle than taking the bus/BART/extremely occasional cab. We know from Paul's blog (awesome blog, Paul!) that he really likes cars. When even he is thinking of ditching it, it says a lot about the service.

Sidebar: I currently live in Portland, which has an award-winning bus/rail service. And it is true, it's awesome. The drivers are polite, and often really care about urban planning/civic stuff. The buses are clean, the documentation/data/maps/API well-done.

But because Portland is so much less dense than SF, it still means that in many cases, taking a bus here is more of a drag, and cars more common. (On a personal note, I've gotten way more into biking since moving here from SF.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice.

I moved out to SF 6 months ago from upstate NY. Rent is expensive, but my girlfriend and got an apartment for $1,200/month, 1 bedroom, 1 livingroom/kitchen, 1 bath. And there's an L stop right out front of our door... though, it does take 20 minutes to get downtown on it, we're in the sunset.

I got rid of a lot of stuff while moving too. It's better that way. I recommend that to everybody who's moving: stuff is expensive not valuable, just get rid of it, buy new stuff at Ikea (1 futon bed, 2 dressers, 1 table, 2 bedside tables plus lamps, all for just over $1,000).

Since we flew out here (I sold my car, she had hers shipped out here) I'd say we spent under $5,000 on the move.

It's totally awesome out here. Worth every penny!

</comment><comment><USER11> I couldn't give away my dog :(

<comment><AUTHOR> It was a hard choice to make. :-/ But she'll be much better off with someone at home more often, with a backyard and a more active lifestyle/running with her. She was mainly black lab with some chow and pitbull so I took her to the dog park for a good 90 minutes every other day to keep her energy levels in check and not destroy the apartment too much haha.

<comment><USER12> We've got three of them in the isocket office - you're welcome to visit and get your dog fix anytime. Especially if you stop by after our product launch this week so we can do another usability testing session. It's come a long way since you saw it last :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you have a driving partner, I would recommend a cross-country driving trip to everyone. A few months ago I moved from Charlottesville, VA out to the Bay Area. I stopped in Memphis, Amarillo, Phoenix, LA and drove up highway 101 from there. It's a weird feeling to describe, but driving across the entire country almost gives you a renewed sense of patriotism.

Oh yeah almost forgot... drive the speed limit in Texas.

</comment><comment><USER14> I moved from Atlanta (I'm also a tech grad) to SF as well. I had to move back down to the south bay where it was at warm at least once a year. Since I landed a job before I went, they paid for the move, which in retrospect was a bad decision because I just ended up moving everything instead of selling/trashing the stuff I rarely use.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was happy to read this post as I am moving to SF on June 26. And it sounds like we roughly had the same budgeting done, except I plan to live with roommates so that will save me some money.

Renting a place off AirBnB for a week while I find a place with roommates. Got rid of almost all of my possessions except for essential computers, clothes, and books. Shipping the computers and clothes that I can't take with me on the flight. Storing the books until I feel like i live in a somewhat permanent place and want them shipped out.

I can't wait to not have a car. Shipping my bike out as soon as I get a place. Going to have a TransLink Muni/Bart pass and a ZipCar card on me as soon as I hit the ground. Plan on using the ZipCar for those rare instances when I need a car/truck. Like my maiden voyage to Ikea for a desk, bed, and maiden Trader Joes grocery trip.

</comment><comment><USER16> I just made this same move a couple months ago. I got a job out here. So my girlfriend and I sold most everything, including my car and drove over with 2 cats. While I can't recommend driving across the country with two cats, I can say that I am glad we got rid of everything. Purging yourself of all your things and starting over is an interesting experience. I have never been one to acquire lots of stuff but I had my share. Getting rid of it all helps you realize how small you can live and still be happy.

</comment><comment><USER17> How I did it (starting January 2008):

      - Drove from Atlanta to Long Beach with dog in back seat.
      - Rented room in Long Beach for three months (found on craigslist).
      - Found it wasn't working with Long Beach co-founder.
      - Drove to San Jose and stayed with friend for three months.
      - Realized startup wasn't working.  Got job.  Got apartment.
      - Still in San Jose needing to jumpstart a startup.

I find it amusing when people go through the "self discovery" phase of seeing how they "feel" about everything. I prefer the more direct approach of "move there and figure it out as you go along."

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm doing this in a week, actually. And I'll be couchsurfing for the forseeable future, living out of my backpack. I can't wait. Road trip and then SF!

This post was extremely valuable for me. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER19> Have you checked out Noisebridge yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't - this is something I'll have to do considering they are in the Mission too! Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Kudos on the move. How's skribit doing btw?</comment>


Random: Yo, Slingshot, Product Hunt, Yelp Competition, Taptalk - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hunterwalk/random-yo-slingshot-product-hunt-yelp-competition-taptalk-a675febad93f <comment><USER2> I love how you defined "rise of anthropology over algorithm in social mobile apps". I strongly believe that Yo will help reshape mobile communications; will be kind of a similar impact like what Snapchat brought to instant photo sharing.</comment>


I know everything once you touch my code - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/b10qgw/i_know_everything_once_you_touch_my_code/ <comment><USER2> I know this might not be a popular opinion, and I recommend that the the code author inform people about this, but realistically, I kind of expect installation telemetry of some kind at this point. Would it not be right to assume that most installs do a ping back to help track things like the versions of the OS and compiler used to build and install the software and if there were any problems?

<comment><AUTHOR> This solution just for source code, not for binary. Developer need rebuild code once they do some change, that would mean your code is valuable for him. I reminder people remove shell/batch files if do not want to share</comment></comment>


TicTacToe in SQL (Postgres) - <AUTHOR> https://bitbucket.org/snippets/mariusz-krynski/bedBGK/tic-tac-toesql <comment><USER2> Taking it to the next level -

Injecting a Chess Engine into Amazon Redshift

[http://www.michaelburge.us/2017/09/10/injecting-shellcode- to...](http://www.michaelburge.us/2017/09/10/injecting-shellcode-to-speed-up- amazon-redshift.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is a version you can play with online: [https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_11&fiddle=71940aadda50f5...](https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_11&fiddle=71940aadda50f55bfede87606cd1dc2c)

</comment><comment><USER4> Yep. Recursive CTE are most bad ass feature of SQL which makes it do stuff that LISP and Haskell does but more declaratively

</comment><comment><USER5> This Single SQL Query Solved My Sudoku In Seconds

[http://oraclemine.com/sql-query-solved-sudoku- seconds/](http://oraclemine.com/sql-query-solved-sudoku-seconds/)

<comment><USER6> original link: [https://technology.amis.nl/2009/10/13/oracle- rdbms-11gr2-sol...](https://technology.amis.nl/2009/10/13/oracle- rdbms-11gr2-solving-a-sudoku-using-recursive-subquery-factoring/)

Why are you linking it to a third party site.

<comment><USER7> Not OP but my guess; OP remembered they read an article about this, googled it, found the first result and linked it. Third party site is winning the SEO game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool, I'm curious, does anyone know - which langauge would use fewest number of characters, to create TicTacToe?

<comment><USER9> The special purpose language, TicTacToe-inator, where an input of zero length compiles to TicTacToe.

<comment><USER10> I love how cynical this comment is. You're absolutely right though, every language solves a specific problem, so it's kind of arbitrary what language does something in the shortest amount of letters.

<comment><USER11> Well, this is trivia about our craft that we enjoy talking about and comparing. Consider that nobody is impressed by the TicTacToe DSL if it appeared among C, JS, and other languages we use. Not very cynical. It'd be a "heh" and move on.

If you want to be critical, it's the stupid statements and interpretations people make from the comparisons. Like the Perl guy coming out of the woodwork to point out how we're a bunch of idiots for not seeing the beauty of the Perl oneliner. Or how it demostates that Go doesn't need generics and how JS web coders aren't real developers.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who had the most influence on your career and why? - <AUTHOR> I am curious to hear about your most influential persons during your professional, but also during your private life. Have these people been coworkers, students or friends? Who had the biggest impact on your growth as an individual in the end. <comment><USER2> My wife for sure. I would never be where I am now without her help. Also the motivation having a wife gives you :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm still trying to find a mentor (good/great one), so been by myself all along (self-learner).

Edit: The most, I think has been Firas Zahabi: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aowunaGcly8&list=PLDOLullo_N...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aowunaGcly8&list=PLDOLullo_N4mA0CPKaR- niU67RULDbvfO) . While the words are mostly about martial arts, they apply to many different fields/life in general.

</comment><comment><USER4> Myself

<comment><USER5> you are my bro, bro.</comment></comment>


"Don't start startups that touch record label music" - <AUTHOR>

"Except for the record labels, which are effectively a rogue state with nuclear weapons. There is nothing we or anyone else can do to protect you from them, except warn you not to start startups that touch label music."--Paul Graham<p>Anyone have any reasons or stories to support/negate this? <comment><USER2> My.MP3.com: vaporized by the RIAA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com#My.MP3.com>

MP3Tunes: being sued [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/27/robertson_predicts_c...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/27/robertson_predicts_cloud_music_victor/)

Amazon Cloud Drive: being threatened [http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and- mobile/a...](http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and- mobile/amazon-letter-to-labels-cloud-drive-locker-1005126042.story)

Google Music: being threatened, may pay for a license they may not need

Apple iTunes Match: you have to pay again to sync music you already bought; presumably the money goes to labels

Spotify: still hasn't launched in US [http://allthingsd.com/20110610/spotify- signs-universal-music...](http://allthingsd.com/20110610/spotify-signs- universal-music-may-really-get-to-the-u-s-after-all/)

<comment><USER3> I think Spotify just announced a partnership with one of the major labels in the US and Apple iTunes Match isn't a bad service given that they wouldn't normally just give you free music just because you bought it elsewhere. And for a flat rate given how big some people's music library are and the free upgrade to higher quality version, it's not necessarily a bad deal.

That said, most music businesses do fail or struggle severely including the above as well as Pandora and Napster among others. It's an extremely difficult space for various reasons.

Personally I don't know if I'd support that statement as I think people should do what they love and try (Pandora took this route and they're still surviving somewhat), but ultimately everyone needs to pick what's right for them. I can only say that it's a space I don't have personal interest in and it is extremely tough to crack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The future of music lies with musicians.

Disintermediate already folks!</comment>


Edward Tufte video presentation on improving iPhone UI - <AUTHOR> http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/iphone-video.adp

<comment><USER2> Yikes... I completely disagree with 'the man' on the stocks and on the weather widget. All of the "improvements" he suggested for weather are horrendous. Adding all that noise does nothing to improve my cognition of what the temp is currently outside and what will it be later in the day.

<comment><AUTHOR> The point of IT is to combine information with technology to answer questions. When designing something like this you need to start by asking yourself what questions your users are trying to answer. The problem with Tufte's sketches is that they answer different questions. The official Apple version of the stock widget is designed to answer the question, "How much money is my portfolio currently worth?" Whereas Tufte's version is designed to answer the question, "Is now a good time to buy a given stock?" (And I would argue that he answers this question poorly and unaesthetically.)

The real problem though is that since his widgets are designed to answer a different set of questions, there isn't really any basis to compare the two sets of designs.

<comment><USER2> > _"How much money is my portfolio currently worth?" Whereas Tufte's version > is designed to answer the question, "Is now a good time to buy a given > stock?"_

I disagree. As someone who has some experience trading stock, there's no way that anyone would seriously make a trade just based on looking at sparklines. Even technical analysts need more information to make a decision. So in that regard, sparklines are a failure.

> _The real problem though is that since his widgets are designed to answer a > different set of questions, there isn't really any basis to compare the two > sets of designs._

What about weather? What question is Tufte's version answering?!

<comment><AUTHOR> "As someone who has some experience trading stock, there's no way that anyone would seriously make a trade just based on looking at sparklines."

That was kind of my thinking, that sparklines are more information than you need to know how much your portfolio is worth, but not enough to answer the question of whether to buy stock. (Which is what I was trying to say when I said that it answers the question poorly and unaesthetically.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> That was... boring. Executive summary:

\- stocks and weather should use higher resolution imagery to convey more data \- MobileSafari's bottom button bar should be transparent as to not take up extra screen real estate \- he really like the phrase "computer administrative debris"

</comment><comment><USER4> I've never seriously investigated the work of Edward Tufte before, but this video really makes it look like he doesn't "get it" at all. He doesn't understand that Apple's reasoning for enhancing the resolution on the iPhone was to make the interface look amazing, not to stuff data into each pixel.

I can see how lots of people would agree with him-- seeing thousands of data points on one screen makes sense. But it sacrifices usability and makes the experience less fun and more difficult-- look at his weather "fix;" not only is it very ugly, but it's also difficult to find exactly what the temperature is because of the poor contrast and small, "image-sized" resolution. Apple's design is "cartoony" because it's supposed to look beautiful, be extremely easy to see, and show minimal data.

It reminds me of a quotation: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

</comment><comment><USER5> I certainly agree with the point that the cartoon aesthetic needs to be dropped in lieu of higher resolution data. Sparklines are an obvious (and very Tufte) solution.

</comment><comment><USER6> URL to the actual video file: [http://edwardtufte.com.s3.amazonaws.com/iPhone_Resolution- de...](http://edwardtufte.com.s3.amazonaws.com/iPhone_Resolution-desktop.m4v)

</comment><comment><USER7> What a load of crap. He had no feel for design. "Fix the design"? This guy has no skill.

</comment><comment><USER8> anyone with a youtube link?</comment>


New Experiment Finds Neutrino Oscillation Isn't 'Real' - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/08/23/new-experiment-finds-neutrino-oscillation-isnt-real/#66b7bc9563f5 <comment><USER2> Nice article, but the title is wrong. The oscillation is real, the flavor is not "real". Better alternatives:

"New Experiment Finds Neutrino Flavor Isn't 'Real'" (to minimize the changes in the title)

"Neutrino Flavor Violates Microrealism" (extract of a sentence near the end of the article)</comment>


Touch-screen BlackBerry set to battle iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/08/BU4113D657.DTL <comment><USER2> And they're off to a brilliant start: [http://monkeyfiresshot.com/2008/10/blackberry-mocks- releases...](http://monkeyfiresshot.com/2008/10/blackberry-mocks-releases- product/)</comment>


Why Nothing Works Anymore – Technology No Longer Serves Human Ends - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/the-singularity-in-the-toilet-stall/517551/?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=iosapp&single_page=true <comment><USER3> This reads a bit like Neal Postman in _Technopoly_ , but I think misses, like Postman, a few critical points. Most of them can be reduced to "technology does not exist in a social or cultural vacuum".

For example, what dos this even mean:

> _Once decoupled from their economic motivations, devices like automatic- > flush toilets acclimate their users to apparatuses that don't serve users > well in order that they might serve other actors, among them corporations > and the sphere of technology itself. In so doing, they make that uncertainty > feel normal._

How can you possibly decouple these from their economic motivations. That is precisely the reason these technologies exist. They may not serve their ends well, but they don't perpetuate themselves. Someone feels they are saving money. (As an aside, automatic towel dispensers have certainly reduced the amount of towel waste in our public bathrooms and I think the automatic faucet is much more hygienic and stops people from leaving it running.)

Or

> _Go to Amazon.com and search for an ordinary product like a pair of shoes or > a toaster. Amazon wants to show its users as many options as possible, so it > displays anything it can fulfill directly or whose fulfillment it can > facilitate via one of many catalog partnerships. In some cases, one size or > color of a particular shoe might be available direct from Amazon, shipped > free or fast or via its Prime two-day delivery service, while another size > or color might come from a third party, shipped later or at increased cost. > There is no easy way to discern what's truly in stock._

I can admit to having been confused by Amazon's options before, but frankly the ability to get things I cannot get at my local big box and for less is almost always worth the occasional confusion. The time I spend reading and sorting is time I would otherwise spend waiting in traffic or looking for a parking spot.

Just like the ability to find information quickly without reading through many web pages or going to the library every time I want an answer generally justifies a Google search for me. I haven't internalized these things. I have made a rational comparison and found one to be superior.

<comment><USER4> >I cannot get at my local big box and for less is almost always worth the occasional confusion

I've been finding a lot of things seem to cost more at Amazon lately - although I'm not generally looking at things that are very expensive - <USER2> <$50, so I'm probably seeing that "free shipping with prime" being added back in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The whole gist of this ode to ludditism appears to be the buried quote: _The more technology multiplies, the more it amplifies instability._

Not only is this an unsupported assertion, the author cites a number of minor, solvable annoyances as intractable problems.

 _Are the toilets flushing too often? Revise the sensor hardware. Is online news full of falsehoods? Add machine-learning AI to separate the wheat from the chaff. Are retail product catalogs overwhelming and confusing? Add content filtering to show only the most relevant or applicable results._

Sounds fine to me. The problem has been identified, and the solution is within our grasp. Let's work toward it instead of jettisoning the baby with the bathwater.

These annoyances come out because new technology often arrives half-baked. It's nice having the future here _now_ , but that often means it doesn't work exactly right out of the gate. That's fine, because more often than not, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

For the most part, our society can deal with an extra toilet flush every now and then.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article was already posted and discussed on Hacker News: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13716724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13716724)

</comment><comment><USER7> Even the article isn't working because I have an adblocker installed. A hindrance that certainly won't serve a potential reader's ends.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'll repeat what I said on Twitter: "A weird metaphor used to elide the reality that all of these problems stem from human choices."

</comment><comment><USER9> First, thanks to Woody Allen for making the point that in the future _fewer_ things will work well, not more; in the movie Sleeper. (I laughed, but I didn't believe him way back then, when it came out. I do now!)

The author is wrong about why. Now, we all get to deal constantly with infant technology, very early in it's technological cycle, low on the learning curve. Soon this tech too will be displaced by a new, new thing - before most of the wrinkles have been ironed out, before it becomes mature tech. Infant tech has always been ugly to deal with us, from the time of the Newcomen engine, to the first gas engines... there just hasn't been so much of it before. Now the changes come so quickly that almost no technology becomes polished and well- adapted to humans before at least some significant part of it is replaced by a new infant tech with its own teething problems.

There is economic benefit, but the costs of forcing humans to begin another learning curve are likely underestimated, along with other unintended consequences.

There is also the Genghis John effect; if too many things are changing at once the usual checks and balances can't possibly keep up.

But there were also a lot of technological inconveniences in the past that I wouldn't wish to experience again, thank you very much. Cameras that easily exposed film accidentally, TVs that would self-destruct when you tried to use the earphone plug to record from them, toasters that violently exploded the wall sockets they were plugged into because the paper tape insulation on wires had unwound over the years shorting them out internally, highly flammable children's pajamas, lead in paint and gasoline; and much, much more.

The big difference is that in the past there was an "age bonus." Yes the tech was terrible and dangerous but by a certain age you knew where and what all the problems were and were nearly at the top of almost every learning curve that mattered to you. You got to relax, and teach the youngsters. That bonus has been ripped away, of course; and we of a certain age do get cranky about it. I've given up on truly fixing my Android device, configuring Windows yet one more time, and many more things because unlike Sisyphus, I do get bored with the whole rolling the rock back up the hill thing. Nonetheless, I like what I can get to work, so I'm okay Jack.

</comment><comment><USER10> Nothing. Works. Anymore.

Here I was thinking the world gets more awesome every day. I am now awake.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is humanity the "subject" of History and technology simply the "object"?

Why do we always think like this?

<comment><USER12> Because the point of having a machine is never just to have the machine. It's to make us able to do things we couldn't before, or to do them more efficiently and effectively.

Technology doesn't create itself. _We_ create it, and we create it for a reason - a reason that matters to _us_ , not to the technology.

<comment><USER13> "Technology doesn't create itself." well, we might end up telling the story of how Amazon internal microservice culture created AWS, or the war created GPS. In that sense, on some level, technology (or ideas or culture) does beget other things. Over time, as each individual human becomes less significant, we might end up being just part of the medium that helps ideas manifest other ideas.</comment></comment></comment>


The Levitron Revolution: Magical Floating Device - <AUTHOR> http://www.unfinishedman.com/the-levitron-revolution-magical-floating-device/ <comment><USER2> I used to have a permanent magnet device similar to this. It didn't need computerized stabilization because the load was actually a spinning top. The gyroscopic forces kept the load stable. It was very difficult to get going, but once you did, it spun a very long time since it had only air friction.</comment>


Low-income families spend 40% of their money on luxuries - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/low-income-families-spend-40-of-their-money-on-luxuries-2017-06-28 <comment><USER2> Odd definition of luxury goods, which makes me wary of the division of necessity vs luxury:

The Deutsche Bank Research report defined luxuries as "goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person's income increases" and necessities as those goods or services that make up a smaller proportion of spending as a person's income increases.

<comment><USER3> This is a technical definition in terms of "elasticity of demand": see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_elasticity_of_demand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_elasticity_of_demand) . Unfortunately it doesn't agree with what normal people hear when they hear the word "luxury".

<comment><USER4> so the article basically restated the definition of luxury. The rich spend more than the poor on luxury items.

<comment><USER5> Well the interesting part is the ratios they give, not the definition of luxury.

It also assumes people are rational consumers, which obviously isn't true. Why would people go into (credit card) debt for something they don't need (luxury)?

Impulse control? Bad financial education? People declare bankruptcy anyway?

<comment><USER4> if your life sucks anyway why would you care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Luxuries include: car, insurance, childcare, telephone, internet, and household supplies. We're not talking about caviar and Coach bags here.</comment>


How programmers get rich - <AUTHOR> http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fmagazine%2Farticle%2F0%2C9171%2C923148-1%2C00.html&h=8AQBTmtUn&refid=0

<comment><USER2> Please change this to a direct link to time.com, not one bounced by facebook.</comment>


Actions-CLI – Monitor your GitHub Actions in real time from the command line - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/remorses/actions-cli <comment><USER2> I like doing as much as possible from the command line, but this has me slightly confused. Anyone have a good example use case that would involve this tool?

<comment><AUTHOR> When I am working on 2 projects at the same time I have to wait until the github actions publishes the npm package, so I use this tool to track when the ci has finished and then install the package on the other project

<comment><USER2> Ah, neat. Got you. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/business/media/instagram-ads-marketing-kardashian.html <comment><USER2> I love the 'I wish we knew what was OK' \- someone viewing the content, totally blind, needs to identify it as an advert without prompting. The only way to do that is to state it, up front, in the same format as the content itself. Not hidden away in some description, not in code, plain and simple. Anything less is obviously intending to deceive, and I see no reason to give anyone leeway to try and hide sponsorship.

If you want your sponsorship to come across as real and honest, then get someone to actually like your product, and then it won't matter that they disclose it, as they'll be able to explain why they like it in a convincing way. The only reason people want to hide the 'sponsored' element is that the product is bad, and paying people is the only way to get them to associate with it.

When I watch an Extra Credits video sponsored by a games company, it comes off as honest because it's clear that it's an advert and the content is still quality and obviously unaltered. When Purge (DOTA 2 personality), talks about DotaBuff, it still comes off as honest as he shows how he uses the service and what value it provides him. This can be done right, and is, by reputable people.

<comment><USER3> The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter.

>Audiences "have a very visceral reaction to '#ad' or '#spon' or whatever it is, where they don't want to know people are getting paid for stuff even if they are."

This is the biggest issue marketers have with those who are advertising their products. Even though you can logically assume that a person you follow is sponsoring products, it is more appalling to the consumer when a sponsorship is labeled with #ad, or the likes.

If everyone was truly a self-aware consumer who knew they were being manipulated, this wouldn't be a huge issue. But the fact is that the majority of people will respond much better to subtle advertisements, then ads that label themselves as an advertisement, which most people are conditioned to ignore or dislike.

For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects.

As for the question "Is it an advertisement?" of course it's an advertisement. But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.

<comment><USER4> > For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using > a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if > they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same > effects.

And would that have been a bad thing? Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales?

> But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.

Why not? What's so great about advertising that it's OK to give it free reign to play around with human psychology and influence peoples' behavior without them even being aware of it?

<comment><USER3> >Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut- throat razor sales?

That's not the point. The point is that these types of advertisements are effective. In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Adding an ad label will eventually make these types of ads obsolete. And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society.

<comment><USER4> > And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society.

I work at Google, so I fully understand how much of today's economy rests on top of advertising. But that doesn't mean society _needs_ to, just that it has _chosen_ to.

I haven't heard compelling arguments that advertising is much of a net boon to humanity. To me, it mostly looks like tools to steal my precious attention in order to make me feel bad about not having a product I didn't know I was missing out on in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes. If you are paid to advertise something, it is an ad.

The law is having trouble catching up on this front, especially in a world where any YouTuber with an audience could potentially run undisclosed ads. Regulating people posting videos out of their basement sounds like a nightmare.

That said, I do my best to never support content creators that don't disclose ads or hide their disclosures in hashtags or below the "Show more" button in a YouTube description. That's not a real disclosure. You know it and I know it. That's why you put it there in the first place- because no one will see it.

<comment><USER6> What if it's a free trip sponsored by Red Bull?

What if you pay $1 for the trip?

What if it's 50% off the trip?

...

Is a social referral program an "ad"?

There's plenty of gray area where you're gifting something non-cash, like an experience that you are interested in anyway. Look at the Kylie Airbnb deal for instance.

<comment><USER7> > _There 's plenty of gray area ..._

There's not. Journalism and politics have this covered:

NO GIFTS.

It's really that simple.

<comment><USER8> What constitutes a gift is definitely a gray area, and very culturally specific. It's nice to want things to be black and white, but reality doesn't always line up.

<comment><USER9> This is why most government agencies have strict policies to never accept any sort of favor from organizations or people they do business with. Even if it's a "I'll pay for lunch next time, you can pay next time."

Basically, if there is even a remote chance that the action could be misconstrued as a gift when viewed from the outside, it's politely rejected.

<comment><USER10> I was part of a government group that regularly accepted airfare, lodging, and meals. There was demand for us, but we didn't have the funding to travel on our own.

One time this created a funny situation where a pro sports team flew us out on their private jet. While we were in the air, they were about to hand out hats with their logo on them, and the head of our group had to stop that until he could consult the lawyers about that gift. It felt like an overreaction in the particular situation, to say the least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is an industry I'm familiar with and I'd love to hear some debate on this. In my opinion the industry resembles celebrity endorsements and product placement much more than digital advertising.

Do celebrities need to disclose they are being compensated to mention a brand on the red carpet?

Do movies need to start including #ad in scenes that have paid product placements?

The idea of endorsements and product placement go back for decades, and this is no different. What distinguishes this from the examples above, and if "ad" needs to be disclosed with influencer posts, why does it not need to be disclosed with celebrity endorsements and product placement?

While there are certainly exceptions (cough _Kardashians_ ) a heavy majority of influencers won't post about brands or products they don't genuinely like and believe their audience would be interested in. They won't muddy their name with a bad brand. So why do they need to be paid to post? Because they aren't going to spend the time to create and share content for free.

<comment><USER12> This is just my personal line, and others may have different lines. My problem is more the implication that someone is using and likes a product when they actually aren't. Regardless of whether or not they're paid to use it. So I don't have an actual problem with the original airbnb tweet, assuming they actually used the house.

> Do celebrities need to disclose they are being compensated to mention a > brand on the red carpet?

They tend to mention brands they are actually wearing at the time. In public. I don't have much of a problem with this.

> Do movies need to start including #ad in scenes that have paid product > placements?

Movies are obvious works of fiction.

<comment><USER13> I'm assuming "the original airbnb tweet" refers to Kylie Jenner's AirBnB birthday gift post.

I consider AirBnB's product/service to be the marketplace for temporary lodging.

I don't know what actually happened with AirBnB/Jenner, but I predict AirBnB reached out with something like "We'll find somewhere nice for you to stay if you post it". I don't consider that using AirBnB's product. The AirBnB's marketing/promotion/whatever team just short-circuited the usage of the product/service.

Of course, if AirBnB's product/service was reaching out out to me and giving me free lodging in a beautiful place for me to post on social media, then I'd be totally down with the original AirBnB tweet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >"A few bloggers we work with say, 'I want you to know, my engagement on posts that are tagged "#ad" or "#spon" get lower engagement than if that wasn't there.'"

This sums up the issue pretty well. The advertisers are acting like there must be some compromise where readers are both informed and engaged, and the reality is that _knowing_ is what disengages them.

That might be something they can overcome through the quality of the paid content, but they cannot be allowed to overcome it by deceiving people.

<comment><USER15> "People hate ads so we'd prefer to just keep tricking them into thinking it's not an ad"

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> One of the few exceptions where the headline question is YES.

<comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there currently a way to tell how much isn't too much to pay influencers or to know what others have paid? I have seen Instagram-famous with 250k followers asking for $5k for one single post in their demographic- but after calculating the ROI with many guess work and assumptions, it seems to be a lot worse than FB ad. The influencers often pitches themselves to be more "organic", or the ad is giving more "brand" effect that's hard to measure with traditional metrics. Sometimes this just feel like a new way of gambling and the seller has way more information and leverage than the buyer.

<comment><USER6> There are several influencer platforms that attempt to be the matchmaker, brands can browse by following or a budget.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not really clear on why anyone should care.

I recognize that my first reaction is an elitist "who cares what losers who 'follow' celebrities get sold on".

But even when I get past that, I can't figure out why I'd care. It doesn't sound like the FTC is in the business of determining what's a legitimate from- the-heart endorsement versus what's a paid endorsement anyway.

In the end, all that really seems to matter is truth in advertising. If she's making undocumented medical claims about something, and being paid to do so, doesn't the FTC already have a right to clamp down on it? Follow the dollars.

I imagine making undocumented medical claims for free fall under 'free speech'. So all they have to do is see if she's getting paid or not.

<comment><USER19> It probably isn't a big issue if you are looking for something to drink. But say you are wanting to buy a larger investment item or one you don't know much about. Kitchen appliances are a good example. Let's say a coffee grinder.

Perhaps you've bought a couple, and they haven't lasted long or been sup-par in quality, or maybe you had one you liked, but they no longer make it. You bought the same brand, but behold, it quit sooner or it doesn't do nearly as well. And you'd really like to have one that is decent, even if you spend a bit more money. If you can't sort out which reviews are paid endorsements and which ones are heartfelt reviews, you are none the wiser. Something that is basically an ad isn't nearly as trustworthy in this case. The ads might not have been false, per se, but they aren't exactly going to give the bad with the good.

<comment><USER10> It seems that Amazon, for example, has already seen the huge problem that causes, and has been working to reduce that problem. At the other end of the spectrum, you'd be assigning the FTC to be like the small subset of redditors who feel compelled to reply "Hail Corporate!" any time you mention a product you like.

<comment><USER19> I do understand that it is a broad spectrum to regulate, and a lot of times, it'll go without being caught. But there are ways of undermining these sorts of things. For example, regulate the more visible folks fairly stringently. This is more because a 'known' individual, a public person, has more pull and status and visibility than the unknown person on reddit. I'd always punish the offending company much more (noticable fines, dependent on company financials) - they can require the person states the paid portion of their endorsement.

In cases like Amazon, it might be hard to catch, but when it is, you can fine the companies involved in the paid support - an ad company, the parent company, etc. (Amazon itself seems to be against this and likely willing to cooperate, so they'd not have much issue).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?"

If you are a public figure paid 1 cent to endorse a product, then it is an ad. If you fail to clearly disclose this ad identity and relationship then it is dishonest, possibly criminal.

Nothing more to discuss. This specific situation is vastly beyond any possible gray area.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Captiv8, a company that connects brands to influencers, says someone with > three million to seven million followers can charge, on average, $187,500 > for a post on YouTube, $75,000 for a post on Instagram or Snapchat and > $30,000 for a post on Twitter.

Grey market indicator on the market value of the platforms themselves

<comment><USER22> Possibly, but I'd say it probably comes closer to matching the (relative) level of effort required to create an average piece of content for each platform. Video vs short video/image vs text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So now we need ad blockers which could identify brands in tags and then block the entire image. I know it sounds absurd but so is modern advertising. They don't seem to have any moral barrier. This is a war for protecting our privacy and the web as a whole.

<comment><USER24> How does Kim Kardashian posting a picture of herself eating a placebo violate your privacy?

<comment><USER23> It doesn't violate my privacy but it endangers the well being of the web. If native advertising becomes the norm journalism as a whole will go down the toilet. First it starts with celebrities endorsing products without clearly stating that they've been paid, and then you'll have the buzzfeed model all around the web. Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can't really tell the difference. I don't like it. Of course I can only speak for myself.

<comment><USER25> > Paid articles that promote products in a way that the untrained user can't > really tell the difference.

You realize that there is nothing new about this right? It's been happening since the dawn of capitalism. Not saying it is bad or good, just noting that it isn't new.

<comment><USER23> It's one thing happening every now and then and a whole different in becoming the new norm.

<comment><USER25> My point is that it has been the norm for quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> They called out "Miranda Sings" for an Arby's commercial.

Looks like the girl is really spreading herself around!

Here's a Taco Bell commercial [1] Another Taco Bell commercial [2] Now we are doing Oreos! [3]

Everything undisclosed of course.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy_rqmSXpvg) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DDdBjOWXMQ) [3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYoI9diaQQ)

</comment><comment><USER27> Recommended reading: "The Girl Who Was Plugged In" by James Tiptree Jr.

</comment><comment><USER28> In my eyes, this kind of advertising has existed for quite a while, and is often times too subtle for most people to notice. Casey Neistat, one of the most popular daily vloggers on YouTube, is a great example of this. There are several recurring product placements in his videos, like the Boosted board, Samsung events, and certain airlines, for which there aren't any _clear_ statements about. An example of these undisclosed partnerships/sponsorships was his 'surprise in South Africa' [0] video back from 2012, where it appears that the trip was sponsored by British Airways without any mention of it. At one point in the video, he makes it look like he's calling American Airlines, but in reality he didn't call (some comments back in the day called him out on it). On the other hand, he did mention that Samsung invited him to the Oscars.

I think most people will watch his videos regardless of whether he discloses his relationships, as was the case with the Nike 'make it count' [1] video which many (including me) found inspiring. However it is clear that it is becoming harder and harder to tell apart what is branded content/native advertising and what isn't.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Mg75awALA) [1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfZkMm3wcg)

</comment><comment><USER29> As a marketing guy, I understand that an endorsement won't come across as genuine if it's clearly marked as an ad... but at at the same time it isn't genuine so there is no problem. Consumers reacting poorly to the realization that their favorite personalities were paid to like something is perfectly normal. I think the challenge to meet is how to make an authentic connection within a paid endorsement framework rather than trying to disguise a paid endorsement as just 'loving a brand.'

<comment><USER30> Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement.

The most authentic endorsement you can have is word of mouth. This is simply being the best product on the market. But this would put advertisers out of business, and force companies to make good long lasting durable products. Neither of these things are in advertisers, or product manufacturers best interest.

Ultimately planned obsolescence, and corporation funded advertisement driven product _cargo cults_ are far more profitable. (I.E.: iPhone, 50's-70's auto manufacturing)

Your statement boils down to _How can we make corporations care about something other then profit?_ The answer is you can't. You misunderstand the purpose of corporations.

<comment><USER31> I don't think that's true by necessity, although it can be. Endorsements are worth money, so it's reasonable to pay for them. Let's say I love Taco Bell (I do) and also I'm a celebrity (I'm not). Even though I genuinely love Taco Bell I wouldn't do a radio commercial for them for free -- but if they offered me money to do it I would, because I love the product. They pay me for my reach and I do it in good conscience because I actually like the product.

Problem becomes when your reach is so large essentially anyone is willing to pay you five figures to hawk anything. I can see how that would be enticing.

Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they're selling. Their value is in their reach, not their expertise, so take celebrity endorsements with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER32> _Ultimately we (the public) have to realize that celebs are just people, who may not have special knowledge about the kinds of products they 're selling._

Surely then, putting a clear sign saying 'Advert' or 'Sponsored' would help everyone to realize this.

<comment><USER31> That muddies the water by treating all adverts the same, when sometimes (like the t-bell example above) the celeb truly likes/uses the product.

I guess the best you can do as a celeb is build your brand around how you do adverts. Some radio hosts here in CA (Armstrong & Getty) say they only do adverts for products they personally use & recommend. I admit to buying a product they advertise (a belt) some years ago and it's great - I'm _glad_ they advertised it because I wouldn't have heard about it otherwise (still wearing it!).

<comment><USER33> IMO it doesn't matter how much the person loves the product it's still an advert if they're compensated in some way for promoting it. "I loved it so much I bought the company", well then it's not an ad?? Of course it's advertising. If there's a causal link between the placement and [the paying of] a consideration then it's an ad.

>they only do adverts for products they personally use & recommend //

Is that a legally binding statement in the relevant jurisdiction, sounds just like the sort of thing a person who'd never used something but was only concerned about the money would say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I actually have found that I am moving further and further away from using Instagram due to the ads. My feed is primary filled up with ads, links to other accounts with ads, and very few pictures that are worth actually following. But with the increase in teens using Instagram vs Facebook. I guess I understand the draw for advertisers.

</comment><comment><USER35> Celebrity endorsements have been regulated by the FTC since the early days of television.[1] This isn't a new thing. It goes back much further. Mark Twain did a lot of endorsements.[2] It got completely out of hand in 1950s and 1960s TV, and the FTC put a stop to it.

The same rules apply on Instagram. Nothing new here, just an old bad idea coming around again.

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking) [2] [http://celebritycred.com/history-of- endorsements/#foobox-1/0](http://celebritycred.com/history-of- endorsements/#foobox-1/0)

</comment><comment><USER36> > _Paid $75k to Love a Brand on Instagram – Is It an Ad?_

Why the question? The answer is yes. It is an ad, and worse...

</comment><comment><USER37> Personally I don't care if something is an ad or not. If it's someone that has some notoriety I sort of expect it. I love calling it out with something simple like "#ad" because I don't feel like I'm being deceived regardless of the clear distinction that the post would clearly be an ad without it. Having the simple hashtag just means that I can trust that the brand isn't trying to be deceitful.

</comment><comment><USER38> There seems to be an overwhelming opinion here that all ads must declare themselves as such. Why is that? I hate ads as much as the next guy, but forcing media to label itself one way or another seems morally suspect, and could certainly run afoul of the principles of free speech and artistic freedom.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why, it's almost as though people hate ads, who'd have thought

</comment><comment><USER39> If you are paid to "like" something when you could care less and pose for a photo like you "love it", that's not an endorsement, that is a de facto legal bribe.

</comment><comment><USER40> > there are no hard and fast rules.

This is untrue. There are regulations around paid endorsements: [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftc...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#when)

<comment><USER41> Your link certainly doesn't support you. There are no hard and fast rules. The link is categorized as "guidance", refers to itself several times as "guidance", and contains language like the following:

> Should I include an additional disclosure when I post on Facebook about how > useful one of our products is? It's a good idea.

> Determining whether followers are aware of a relationship could be tricky in > many cases, so we recommend disclosure.

> Again, determining that could be tricky, so we recommend disclosure.

> The Guides are intended to give insight into what the FTC thinks about > various marketing activities involving endorsements and how Section 5 might > apply to those activities. The Guides themselves don't have the force of > law.

If someone files a complaint about you with the FTC, they may come after you after the fact, on a case-by-case, individualized basis; that's as much as they're saying until such time as someone files a complaint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So 100K followers on Instagram snags you $2.5K for a single subliminal ad ? This seems high.

<comment><USER43> This. Looking at the fees paid by the brands they all looked kinda high. I am wondering how do they actualy quantify the results of those endorsement

<comment><USER44> Unfortunately influencer marketing and ROI are rarely terms used together at present. That being said, it's a format that's a perfect fit for brand awareness as much as it is direct action, so there is value in looking at vanity metrics for reach - shame that path leads to people (potentially) gaming the system.

<comment><USER45> Branding plays are notoriously hard to measure the impact of because they simply lack the ability to consistently track the touchpoint on the path to conversion. And even then there is the question of how to weight it along with all the others. View-throughs should never be given 100% credit.

If there is anyone who has cracked the nut on how to justify branding efforts to management on an ROI basis I'd love to pick your brain. Arguably one of the hardest problems in marketing today.

<comment><USER44> If you have a suitable targetable niche, then perception studies really do help - especially if your campaign is designed to change an existing preconception in order to appeal to new people (as opposed to being a direct driver - long pipeline for us). That's what we did and got buy-in from management for the ROI on that basis

<comment><USER45> How did your ROI calculation look then?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Kylie looks like a zombie with a twisted left leg on that pic. Bleurgh...</comment>


Multiple choice - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2015/07/06/multiple-choice/comment-page-1/ <comment><USER2> This is a perfect use case for a SAT solver. Here is a solution using the Python Z3 bindings:

      from z3 import *

      def all(vars):
          result = BoolVal(True)
          for var in vars:
              result = And(result, var)
          return result

      def any(vars):
          result = BoolVal(False)
          for var in vars:
              result = Or(result, var)
          return result

      def none(vars):
          return Not(any(vars))

      def oneof(vars):
          result = any(vars)
          for i, a in enumerate(vars):
              for b in vars[i + 1:]:
                  result = And(result, Not(And(a, b)))
          return result

      vars = [Bool(c) for c in "abcdef"]

      def above(i):
          return vars[:i]

      def below(i):
          return vars[i + 1:]

      s = Solver()

      s.add(vars[0] == all(below(0)))
      s.add(vars[1] == none(below(1)))
      s.add(vars[2] == all(above(2)))
      s.add(vars[3] == oneof(above(3)))
      s.add(vars[4] == none(above(4)))
      s.add(vars[5] == none(above(5)))

      s.check()

      print(s.model())

For what it's worth, the answer is E. :)

<comment><USER3> Yup, I agree! After figuring it out by hand I was having fun encoding it for sat via this horrible pipeline:

      step 1 : write it out by hand in PBL [alpha]
      step 2 : convert it to CNF format using [beta]
      step 3 : hand-reformat it tediously to produce [gamma]
      step 4 : plug machine readable CNF into [delta]
      step 5 : receive a feasible solution! [epsilon]

[alpha]

      Main_Exp : ((a <=> (b & c & d & e & f)) & (b <=> (~c & ~d & ~e & ~f)) & (c <=> (a & b)) & (d <=> (a | b | c)) & (e <=> (~a & ~b & ~c & ~d)) & (f  <=> (~a & ~b & ~c & ~d & ~e)))

[beta] [http://formal.cs.utah.edu:8080/pbl/PBL.php](http://formal.cs.utah.edu:8080/pbl/PBL.php)

... find replace, find replace, ...

[gamma]

      c multiple choice
      p cnf 6 29
      -1 2 0
      -1 3 0
      -1 4 0
      -1 5 0
      -1 6 0
      -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 1 0
      -2 -3 0
      -2 -4 0
      -2 -5 0
      -2 -6 0
      3 4 5 6 2 0
      -3 1 0
      -3 2 0
      -1 -2 3 0
      -4 1 2 3 0
      -1 4 0
      -2 4 0
      -3 4 0
      -5 -1 0
      -5 -2 0
      -5 -3 0
      -5 -4 0
      1 2 3 4 5 0
      -6 -1 0
      -6 -2 0
      -6 -3 0
      -6 -4 0
      -6 -5 0
      1 2 3 4 5 6 0

[delta] [http://www.msoos.org/2013/09/minisat-in-your- browser/](http://www.msoos.org/2013/09/minisat-in-your-browser/)

[epsilon]

      This is MiniSat 2.0 beta
      </comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>====[ Problem Statistics ]</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====
      | |
      | Number of variables: 6 |
      | Number of clauses: 29 |
      | Parsing time: 0.00 s |
      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>====[ Search Statistics ]</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>
      | Conflicts | ORIGINAL | LEARNT | Progress |
      | | Vars Clauses Literals | Limit Clauses Lit/Cl | |
      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=
      | 0 | 6 29 75 | 9 0 nan | 0.000 % |
      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=
      Verified 29 original clauses.
      restarts : 1
      conflicts : 2 (2 /sec)
      decisions : 5 (0.00 % random) (5 /sec)
      propagations : 10 (10 /sec)
      conflict literals : 5 (28.57 % deleted)
      CPU time : 1 s

      SATISFIABLE
      v -1 -2 -3 -4 5 -6 0

5 is true, aka e.

edit: I think I am someone who interprets "one of the above" as "at least one of the above but possibly more" not "exactly one of the above". not that the interpretation makes a difference for this problem.

</comment><comment><USER4> Simple solution:

* A and B can't both be true, which means that C is false.

* If C is false, A must be false.

* B and D have a paradoxical relationship, given the others - if B were true, D would be true, which would make B false, so B must be false.

* D is false, given A, B, C are false.

* E is true, given A, B, C, D are false.

* F is false because E is true (typo corrected as per comment)

<comment><USER5> _F is false because D is true._

F is false because _E_ is true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Spoiler alert. View the question before reading answers posted here.

<comment><USER4> How does knowing the answer help you solve the problem?

<comment><USER7> It doesn't. Knowing the answer means you can't solve it without being influenced of other people's answers/thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just went down one by one and ruled them out, I'm surprised that people have harder ways to do it. My reasoning for ruling out each one:

a) b contradicts it.

b) cde encompass all the choices, so you can't have none of those.

c) a contradicts b.

d) abc have already been rejected.

e) works.

f) e already works.

<comment><USER9> Absolutely - thanks for sharing; you were far more concise than how I was going to explain my solution. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> E A very interesting mental brute force process to work it out though. How did other people work it out, is there a more elegant method?

</comment><comment><USER11> Figured I'd dust off my old constraint programming language ([https://github.com/dbunker/SABR/blob/master/test/Real/Multip...](https://github.com/dbunker/SABR/blob/master/test/Real/MultipleChoice/multi.tb))

with result ([https://github.com/dbunker/SABR/blob/master/test/Real/Multip...](https://github.com/dbunker/SABR/blob/master/test/Real/MultipleChoice/multi- expected.txt)). Fifth position being E.

A bit on the verbose side, but might be preferable to some since it explicitly enumerates all the possibilities for each rule.

</comment><comment><USER12> That's a fun quick brainteaser! Reminds me of those old puzzles where you'd have a list of facts -- like there are 7 houses in a row, all different colors and with different species of pets in the yard, the blue house is next to the orange house, the green house has a pet with 2 legs, etc. etc., and they provide just enough info that you can logically chain together the order of colors and pets.

They're a bit like the word-problem version of working out sudoku (vs. guessing at it, which is a different game).

</comment><comment><USER13> Either _e_ or _f_ , I can't think of a reason why it can't be _f_...

<comment><USER14> Because e == f, and if f is true then e is true, in which case f is false, hence a contradiction, hence it cannot be f.

<comment><USER15> >Because e == f, and if f is true then e is true, in which case f is false

e != f, because they produce different results. You could say e() == f(), each having the previous answer choices as arguments and each requiring them to be false. But since e() evaluates to true, f() can't be true.

<comment><USER16> A better way to phrase it would be that, f implies e, but e doesn't imply f. In fact e implies 'not f'.

<comment><USER13> Aaaaah, I understand now. Thanks :3

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> e

<comment><USER18> was my first guess too

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The answer is E.

</comment><comment><USER20> e

</comment><comment><USER21> b

<comment><USER22> But then "d" will be true, contradicting "b".</comment></comment>


Hybrid Books Add Video and Web Features - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/books/01book.html

<comment><AUTHOR> A good example of a "hybrid book" is the free physics textbook _Motion Mountain_ (<http://www.motionmountain.net/>). It includes many animations, videos, and links.</comment>


Peter Thiel's CS183: Startup - Class 2 Notes - <AUTHOR> http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/20582845717/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-2-notes-essay <comment><USER2> Here is a link to his notes from the first lecture in case if anyone is interested: <http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/20400301508/cs183class1>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm auditing the class as well and I like it quite a lot. Make sure to not get TLDR discouraged and at least scroll all the way down for the (very amusing) video that was played in class. Direct link:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6IQ_FOCE6I&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6IQ_FOCE6I&feature=player_embedded) from 2007 but still semi-relevant :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Being in my early 30s, it's pretty funny to think about someone in college today taking notes about the late 90s. It doesn't make me feel old...yet.

</comment><comment><USER5> Loved this. As someone who was into tech but oblivious to the tech scene in the 90's this was incredibly useful, will read as many as you write!

(anyone know if there are videos of the lectures available?)

<comment><USER6> I second this. Audio recording or podcast will suffice in the absence of video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the notes: "by late 1998, the NASDAQ was at about 1400—just 400 points higher than it was in August '95. "

A 40% increase in a stock index in ~3 years is an amazingly huge bull market and the sense of frothiness was everywhere at the time. In general, telescoping the "bubble" to 18 months doesn't make sense to me -- the craziness really started with the Netscape IPO. But it was a hockey stick and so those 28 months of the curve look particularly crazy.

</comment><comment><USER8> College dropout advocate Peter Thiel to teach course at Stanford

[http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/pr...](http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=20158638&siteId=568)

<comment><USER9> I know you're being snarky, but I really don't see the contradiction. These students haven't graduated yet, so they can still drop out if they're inspired by his class.

<comment><USER10> Moreover, he likely advocates/d dropping out because college courses are not useful in the industry... By teaching himself, he can change/influence that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sorry for the ignorance, but who is Nolan that is listed as the second lecturer of the course? (tried Googling)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm in that class. The stories about his awesomeness are all true.

<comment><USER13> Wish they would offer this course on iTunes U like Hegarty's CS193P.

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately, the class is not recorded :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> good read, thanks for posting these notes!

</comment><comment><USER15> No girls!

"Facebook Backer Wishes Women Couldn't Vote" <http://gawker.com/5231390/>

<comment><USER16> If you have any legitimate criticisms of Peter Thiel, or the essay mentioned in that gawker article ( [http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/the-educa...](http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/the- education-of-a-libertarian/) ), please consider elaborating on them in a new post. I'm sure many here would be interested.

But linking to gawker in the comments of an unrelated story probably isn't the best way to express your concerns.

<comment><USER15> My legitimate criticism of Thiel is that he's a sexist creep.

<comment><USER16> That's not what I meant by legitimate criticism.

Go write a compelling, well-cited account of all the things he's done to upset you or--even better--all the ways he's discriminated against women.

Publish it somewhere. On a blog, in a municipal paper, on TechCrunch, whatever. If you can actually write that story, do it. Make it good enough that people care.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


One of the Most Insane Flights in the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.fodors.com/world/south-america/chile/easter-island/experiences/news/the-incredible-true-story-of-one-of-the-most-insane-flights-in-the-world <comment><USER2> Great read but severely lacking in pictures and videos from the event.

<comment><USER3> and a non-clickbait title.</comment></comment>


Here's Everything That Just Went Down at Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-01/-35-000-model-3-and-everything-else-that-just-went-down-at-tesla <comment><USER2> Quoting the quotes: "Full Self Driving" [...] "imminently," [...] "drive automatically on city streets."

Meaning you can pay now to get later this little self-driving feature multiple huge companies have been struggling to implement for ten years. That they haven't yet been able to demonstrate even with superior sensory equipment. I'd say it's not fraud if you've deluded yourselves into thinking you can deliver. But this is not legal advice.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Customers now can return a Tesla within 7 days or 1,000 miles of driving for > a full refund.

So Teslas don't depreciate when you drive them off the lot? Or perhaps they are so confident that the return rate per this policy will be low enough that the increase in sales will more than compensate.

<comment><USER4> Several of the online mattress companies offer free returns. I think Casper and Leesa both offer 100 days, for example. I think it's very safe to assume that a mattress depreciates a lot when not in brand new condition.

But the model is obviously working for them. Maybe the industries aren't exactly comparable because of different margins, though.

<comment><USER5> It works because these online mattress companies ship you the mattress in vacuum sealed plastic.

When you finally manage to wrestle the plastic off, the mattress expands to five times the shipped volume. For many people, the immediate next thought is "God I hope it's tolerable, because there's no way in hell I'm going to be able to get this thing out of my bedroom, let alone ship it back."

<comment><USER6> Both Casper ([https://casper.com/faqs/returns-exchanges/how-do-i-start- a-r...](https://casper.com/faqs/returns-exchanges/how-do-i-start-a-return-or- exchange-91fb272e-634a-4c20-823d-6d14fabb9a7e/)) and Leesa ([https://support.leesa.com/hc/en- us/articles/115011597147-Do-...](https://support.leesa.com/hc/en- us/articles/115011597147-Do-I-return-the-mattress-in-the-original-box-)) will arrange pickups for you, so they don't have to ship it back.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


*nix command line apps should have a –json output flag - <AUTHOR> http://thomashunter.name/blog/linux-cli-apps-should-have-a-json-flag/ <comment><USER2> It seems like someone who runs enough pings to warrant this kind of parsing would be better served writing a service which does nothing but ping stuff. Then they can use whatever encoding method they want rather than trying to retrofit such things onto existing tools which are for humans.

It seems people want to wrap things and parse them rather than making the same basic library calls themselves. Note the "inspiration" part of this post: the author started parsing the output of iwlist instead of just making the requisite calls directly.

Oh, and don't derail this with a discussion of suid-ness required for raw sockets (ping) or whatever magic ioctls that an iwlist-alike would require. This applies to other things which can run as a normal user, too.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps my biggest shortcoming is not knowing how to make these library calls. I only write scripted code (node.js, PHP, etc.) and haven't done anything with binary libraries.

Also, I write a lot of apps which I release under the BSD license, and generally shy away from touching anyone else's binary libraries for fear of catching the GPL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Or just pipe the output into a filter that outputs the json for you.

<comment><USER5> There's no Job Security in that! You need to rearchitect the entire system to add in protocol support for the flavor-of-the-moment each time it changes.

<comment><USER3> The article uses JSON as an example, and goes on to say that any data exchange format would work. XML could become the standard as it is easily converted into different data storage languages without the need to write output specific filters.</comment></comment></comment>


Linux AI programmable robot baby dinosaur. - <AUTHOR> http://www.handlewithlinux.com/linux-robot-baby-dinosaur

<comment><USER2> When I was a kid, toys were powered by imagination. Today, they run linux.

<comment><USER3> Imagination to the power of Linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The last time I saw a Pleo story, it was about the robotic dinosaur getting mauled by a battle bot. It gave me rather mixed emotions. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95MAyWE0ERk>

<comment><USER5> If we armed pleo with missiles and lasers (think of the 80's cartoon dino riders) I'm sure he could hold his own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Pleo is convincing enough to at least attract the attention of dolphins

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i_HN_Twdds#t=1m46s>

</comment><comment><USER7> "It's a Unix system. I know this."

</comment><comment><USER8> Anybody here actually hack a pleo? I've never seen this before but it looks cool. Any reviews by HN users?

</comment><comment><USER9> I actually have two Pleos. I never get around to playing with them, though. It's unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER10> Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm feeling an uncanny valley kind of response when I see this thing. It mostly looks adorable and appears emotive but it's not real. Imagine replacing your dog or cat with such a thing. Your dog actually cares about you and maybe your cat does too (unlikely), but this thing is just a machine. You can turn it off and throw it in the corner. To pretend to care about it, all by yourself (not as some fun among a group of people) just seems really weird to me.</comment>


Surveillance Capitalism as Threat to Democracy - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-and-a-the-age-of-surveillance-capital.html <comment><USER2> There are two points that I strongly disagree with:

1) The characterization of capitalism as a novel acquisitive behavior. This is ridiculous. People have always controlled things, such as they were able to. Capitalism is, if anything, the abstraction of ownership away from violence.

2) The notion that the digital industry is characterized by surveillance seems to me to miss the point. The motivating factors in instrumentation aren't a desire to spy so much as a desire to ensure you're wasting as much of your attention as possible. Facebook is less like big brother, more like a psychic parasite. Or drug dealer.

<comment><USER3> 2) Or a government actor, given the revolving door between Facebook and the government, the army of lobbyists, the reliance of each and every political candidate on Facebook's advertising, and Facebook's influence on our democratic discourse. But sure, the digital industry is just trying to optimize time spent on their products, and these other larger concerns are besides the point. /s

<comment><USER2> I propose we make a new razor: Never assume machiavellianism when self- interest will suffice.

<comment><USER4> throwaway5167 didn't imply that such companies are machiavellian rather than profit-seeking though, but that their profit-seeking nature leads them to be tolerant, even welcoming, of partnerships with actors who are machiavellian (ie driven by spying and propaganda) when that allows for more profit to be made, which is the worrying part

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I do not leave comment because some surveillance process will make inferences about me.

</comment><comment><USER6> So is censorship capitalism when it censors beyond what's illegal (prostitution, illegal sales, cons, fraud, exploitation, etc).

Here, at least, with this, one would hope the owner has the ability and right to enable of disable unwanted features.</comment>


Stroustrup on next-gen C++: I didn't want to let go of my baby - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/stroustrup_on_c_plus_plus/ <comment><USER2> The idea of languages adhering to some sort of standard and not being owned by a corporation rings true.

I can see this first hand with Objective-C, where Apple evolves the language as they see fit. The joining of such different paradigms as Smalltalk-style OO and C was fragile in the first place and can barely sustain the new functionality.

Another example is C#. No matter how nice the language becomes, it will always be the MS language for me, and I don't trust MS when it comes to APIs and languages - they shuffle things around for no reason, cancel projects, etc. And then you're screwed.

<comment><USER3> I think the notable exception to that rule is Go.

Go is imported by Google, not exported by them.

It's also got good funding, a large number of well known core team members (who won't let it die) and a good license which protects the users in the future.

<comment><USER4> Could you explain the "imported" comment? (I don't know much about the history of Go, and it looks a lot like Google is exporting it.)

<comment><USER3> Google don't really prescribe what happens with Go from what I can see. It's left up to the Go team who's focus is to produce a general purpose language and the community who want a stable product that fills their needs as well. Google take the stable release and use it internally. Therefore Google import it from the community project.

Some other notable organisations develop everything internally and then release it to the public i.e. they export it. For example C#.

<comment><USER5> > who's focus is to produce a general purpose language

More a "solve Google's specific problems" language, general Google purpose

<comment><USER6> Um, nope? What exactly is google-specific about it? Nothing from what I can tell. It's as general-purpose as C or Python or JS etc etc. In fact, it's basically C, slightly redesigned from scatch for this decade rather than the one 30 years ago...

<comment><USER7> It's not dictated by Google management, but it's definitely directed by Pike et al to address the concerns of companies developing software at Google's massive scale.

As an example, C++ and Java programs at Google were taking more than half an hour to compile. This is why Go's semantics were chosen with speed-of- compilation in mind:

* Strictly acyclic module hierarchies (greatly simplifies compile-time name resolution)

* No generics (specialization has a compile-time cost)

* Unused imports are a fatal compilation error (to avoid having to parse unnecessary files)

All three of these decisions are somewhat contentious; Pike admits as much in many of his talks. But they were chosen because of the challenges of writing software at Google's scale. It is in this roundabout way that Go "belongs" to Google, in the sense that it addresses problems that Google has and prioritizes the best solutions to those problems, whether or not those solutions are at odds with the needs of non-Google users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Stoustrup is right, there's many dark and really dank corners of C++ and people start poking around in them and bringing them into production code and that's just bad for everyone. It's like tigers, tigers are awesome and it's great that our ecosystem has developed to support them, but you don't put a tiger in your house.

I do C++ dev work for a living, I enjoy it. The language can be a nightmare, but as long as you're sensible and frugal with what you're using it's no worse than anything else. The trick is to really, really think about whether a specific feature is worth taking into a more complex direction with some of the edgier C++ functionality, or sticking with more core, basic, understandable code which might trade off performance.

I should probably say I've not done any 'proper' C++ development for a while, mostly we build with Qt and that abstracts a lot of the headaches away into a nice toolkit.

<comment><USER9> "as long as you're sensible and frugal with what you're using it's no worse than anything else"

That is part what makes C++ worse: the fact that being a C++ experts primarily means knowing what not to do.

<comment><USER8> Being an expert in any language means knowing what not to do, more than knowing what you should do.

<comment><USER9> Really? When someone says they are an expert in Java, they do not mean that they are well-versed in what sort of Java statements have unexpected, undefined, or indeterminate behavior. Even more so when someone calls themselves an expert in Lisp, Haskell, Scala, and other high-level languages. We are not talking about maintainability or style, we are talking about just being able to solve basic computational problems without having your program abort. In addition to this entire book on what not to do, books on advanced C++ programming (like the "Effective C++" series) are loaded with things you shouldn't do:

<http://www.semantics.org/cpp_gotchas/index.html>

C++ also encourages programmers to do "bad things," where other languages discourage such code. In Scheme, arguments to functions are evaluated in an undefined order, and so such arguments should never have global side effects; but Scheme discourages global side effects in general. In C++, arguments to functions are also evaluated in an undefined order...but global side effects are encouraged and widely used in C++, and it is easy to inadvertently create a situation where this becomes a problem (e.g. one argument might resize a vector, when the other is an iterator to that vector -- both common, both encouraged, but a pretty bad combination). C++ makes the most dangerous ways to do things the easiest and least verbose: pointers to access arrays, fixed- width integers, floating point numbers, etc.; other languages make such dangerous things more verbose and force programmers to be explicit when they try to utilize such constructs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Out of curiosity, if one wanted to "re-learn modern C++" after years of Java, Python, Ruby, where could he start from? (something like a "crash course") Is Stroustrup's "Principles and Practice Using C++" any good for this purpose?

<comment><USER11> Principles and Practices is a book for people who have not programmed before. Unfortunately, the book you want is the fourth edition of The C++ Programming Language, which will not be available until April: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321563840>

<comment><USER10> yep, I'll probably order it when it comes out ...though it's definitely not a "crash course" :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I tend to think the new C++ is apt for a new project with no historical burden. We can always use the more modern features. However this may not hold true for existing projects with a number of developers

<comment><USER3> Except that's not how it works. The realistically high skilled C++ people are far and few between so you end up with a shit crock cludged together out of vaguely bastardised MFC'ish code, knotted with Win32 and ATL and Boost with a load of "features which were too dangerous to use" removed.

C++ has such a bad legacy, it's going to be really hard to shake off the bad old days.

Perhaps in time when the newer generations actually have been using C++11 for a while, but not for at least 5-10 years if you ask me.

<comment><USER13> Beyond the complexity of C++ I think one of the biggest problems with it is the lack of self sufficient standard libraries. There was always something extra that needs to be done. For example, simple things like converting a string to a number involves more thinking and knowledge (using string streams) that what is really necessary.

<comment><USER14> c++11 includes std::string/number conversion.

eg:

int stoi(const std::string& str, size_t *pos = 0, int base = 10); std::string to_string(int value);

<http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string>

<comment><USER13> But it's 2012! it's late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > "A lot of people look at C++ and want to understand every dark corner. This > is what you do if you want to be a compiler writer, but most people should > look at what is the easiest way to write a good solution for their problem," > said Stroustrup.

Ha! So even Soustrup agrees C++ is inevitably subsetted by its users.

> "I try to focus on things that lead to correct programs fairly easily. I > emphasise the use of constructors to establish invariance, to acquire > resources, destructors for cleaning up, copy operations, and the new [C++ > 11] move semantics that allow you to move an object out of one scope and > into another one very cheaply," he added.

Keeping the rest of the quote here - now I'm looking for a more abstract and more inclusive notion about what constructors and destructors do.

</comment><comment><USER16> what an ugly baby that is...

</comment><comment><USER17> Whata possessive father :-)</comment>


Show HN: CallStop, a 100% Effective Robocall Blocker - <AUTHOR> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/callstop/id1455892856?ign-mpt=uo%3D2 <comment><AUTHOR> I know this a problem that a lot of people on Hacker news have been frustrated with. I decided to develop a solution that uses whitelisting, which is a better approach than blacklisting.

Here's some more information about CallStop. CallStop automatically creates a whitelist from your contacts, and allows people to send you whitelist requests effortlessly via text links.

You can also manage an unlimited number of temporary PINs which you can drop into Slack, your email footer or anywhere where groups of people reach you.

When an unknown caller calls your device number, they hear the following message:

"You have reached a phone number protected by CallStop. If you know this person, press 1 to send a whitelist request with a quick note. If you have a PIN to reach this person directly, press 2 and enter the PIN."

How does the app work? You forward your number to your CallStop number upon signup. Incoming calls are received via VOIP pushkit and filtered via whitelist rules.

If you want to accept all calls as most phones do currently, you can just toggle that on in the Settings page of CallStop.

You can also customize your voice message upon signup to add a personal touch.

I've also created a landing page at callstop.com for the app.

I hope this solves this problem for many of you! Thanks</comment>


Git Paid – make code contributions and get paid - <AUTHOR> https://hack.ether.camp/idea/git-paid---make-code-contributions-and-get-paidA <comment><USER2> Wrong URL. It has an unnecessary "A" at the end.

[It's very suspicious that a 404 submission get 7 points. Remember that using sockpupet/meatpupets are not allowed in HN.]</comment>