Boeing 777X's fuselage split dramatically during September stress test - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-777xs-fuselage-split-dramatically-during-september-stress-test/ <comment><USER2> > The relatively good news for Boeing is that because the test failed so > explosively at just 1% shy of meeting federal requirements, it will almost > certainly not have to do a retest. Regulators will likely allow it to prove > by analysis that it's enough to reinforce the fuselage in the localized area > where it failed.

I don't understand this. So they did a test, and it failed at 99%. They reinforce that one area where it failed, and show by analysis that the reinforced area would have made it to at least 100%.

OK, but what about the rest of the fuselage? The rest was only tested to 99%. Couldn't there be another place that fails at, say, 99.5%, which wasn't detected in the first test because the place that fails at 99% stopped the test?

Edit: I would guess that during this kind of test they have the plane heavily instrumented with things like strain gauges so they can understand how it reacts and see if it is behaving according to spec. So maybe it is the case that the data from the rest of the fuselage showed that it would have made it to 100% if the test had continued, and only the area that failed was in trouble. That could explain why they aren't require to do another test.

That still leaves me unsatisfied, though. Presumably analysis of the design _before_ the test said it would make it to 100%. If the failure was not due to a manufacturing defect in that particular fuselage, then it suggests that they analysis was not adequate. But then what assurance is there that their analysis that shows that the reinforcement would hold is good?

<comment><USER3> The truth is that even the reinforcement they are going to do is more for PR than for actual safety. This test was _intended_ to push the plane to its limit. Not close to, but actually up to the limit, so it was actually _expected_ to fail somewhere around this point. What they call 100% for this test is actually 150% of what the plane is expected to experience in a worst- case real-world situation. The difference between failing at 99% and failing at 101% (which is what happened the last time they ran this test) is negligible from a practical point of view. You'll almost certainly get more variance than that in practice just from manufacturing non-uniformities, random environmental factors, age, etc.

Boeing has committed a lot of sins recently, but this isn't one of them.

<comment><USER4> > What they call 100% for this test is actually 150% of what the plane is > expected to experience in a worst-case real-world situation. [..] The > difference between failing at 99% and failing at 101%

So, what is it 100% of?

Not that I even care enough about Boeing clickbait to skimread the article, but this discussion makes it seem like "percent" is a really poor fit for whatever this is actually measuring and trying to communicate.

<comment><USER5> So, first, airliners aren't really expected to experience more than 1.3G's of loading in normal or even unusual operation.

They are expected to be able to survive 2.5G's (limit load) without structural damage. The 777X satisfied this.

They are expected to be able to survive a few seconds of 1.5x this-- 3.75G-- without outright failure but possibly with (irreparable) structural damage. Instead, it catastrophically failed at a loading corresponding to 3.70G's.

They are going to reinforce and fix the specific failure that happened at 3.7G's, and make an argument based on strain gauges and instrumentation that another, distant failure was not likely before 3.75G's.

<comment><USER6> _So, first, airliners aren 't really expected to experience more than 1.3G's of loading in normal or even unusual operation. _

This is 100% true. But the unexpected happens. China Airlines 006 saw 5G due to pilot error. Everyone survived and the plane (Boeing 747-SP) saw another 25 years of service.

Additionally planes age. What's your failure point after 10-15 years of service?

Another part that's worrisome is the original angle. Originally the failure was reported as a cargo door blowing out. The pictures released show otherwise. So the question remains: who got reporters to go with a cargo door failure and why?

 _They are going to reinforce and fix the specific failure that happened at 3.7G 's, and make an argument based on strain gauges and instrumentation that another, distant failure was not likely before 3.75G's. _

That depends on how much you trust Boeing's modeling and assembly skills. IMO the pickle forks on the NG cast at least a little bit of shade on Boeing's reputation.

<comment><USER7> With regards to the cargo door story - a door did blow out, but it was a passenger door, not a cargo door. Passenger doors are plug-fit (they're bigger than the hole, and pressure holds them in place), so it's not really possible for a passenger door to blow out. Cargo doors are not plug fit, so a latching failure could cause a door to blow out. Everyone in the industry remembers the DC10 cargo door failures.

I suspect the early rumours said a door had blown out, and as that's not really a possible failure mode for a passenger door, it was assumed it must have been a cargo door. Now, in this case a passenger door did blow out, but it wasn't a door failure. The fuselage some distance below a door failed, and split right up past the door. The partially unsupported door then blew out. But the door was peripheral to the story. Boeing could definitely had handled this much better, but it's not really surprising that in the absence of full facts the rumour mill got this one wrong.

<comment><USER6> _Cargo doors are not plug fit, so a latching failure could cause a door to blow out._

Right. A cargo door failure could be simply user error.

 _Everyone in the industry remembers the DC10 cargo door failures._

And the 747 ones too hopefully (user error and poor design).

 _The fuselage some distance below a door failed, and split right up past the door. The partially unsupported door then blew out._

Right, the door failure was secondary.

 _Boeing could definitely had handled this much better, but it 's not really surprising that in the absence of full facts the rumour mill got this one wrong. _

Someone at Boeing obviously leaked part of the story (the door failed) and Gates ran with what information he was provided. The question remains: why only leak part of that story? Either failure will look bad to laypersons and both would be dismissed fairly quickly by people more familiar with airliners.

Is the working theory that Boeing PR is simply that incompetent or short sighted?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This sounds fine. It's a catastrophic failure test. They push until it breaks, then it broke, and they were very close to their designed target (within 1%). If they had gone 1% past their designed target, they would have been upset, as they could have made the plane lighter. They were 1% short of design limit, they are upset because they'll have to add reinforcement.

Have you seen the wing failure test? I worked for the company that did these tests (they did them before I worked there), and they still talk about how upset the engineers were that it went over spec in strength.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0)

<comment><USER9> The test on the Boeing 787 broke the load test machine - the composite wing was so strong, they literally couldn't break it.

And let's just put this on record, so people can really shut up about this: The Airbus A380 failed at 145% maximum wing load. That's a full 3.3% below the safety margin. They did not retest, but did subsequently reenforce (just as Boeing is here). The plane was put into service by the FAA.

<comment><USER10> It's always the same on HN. Some post about any news at Boeing, be they good, bad or whatever.

Someone has to chime in and drag Airbus through the dirt at least once. Let's at least mention one issue regarding Airbus. Is this a sales platform?

Really makes you wonder. Maybe it's just some weirdo mix of patriotism and capitalism.

<comment><USER9> This post didn't "drag Airbus through the dirt," it proved that there's no issue with the testing process at hand. Airbus did nothing wrong, nor did Boeing in this instance. Both "failed" to hit the target safety margin, took remediation steps, and did not retest. This is the system working as intended.

The fact that you see this as somehow anti-Airbus is evidence of a personal bias.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.

Hmm. Does it lower structural integrity, or improves it?

<comment><USER12> And is it likely to be a condition that a plane would experience during conditions like the test? Seems like it should nullify the entire test.

<comment><USER13> 100% on the test is 150% beyond what would be expected from the absolute worst case real life scenarios. It would require extraordinary circumstances beyond what has been seen or modeled in reality to push an actual flight to these limits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very impressive. They strengthened the fuselage to meet requirements almost exactly, and fell a tiny bit short. That's an incredible amount of optimization, that means there's hardly any excess material (weight). This keeps fuel costs low and airfares competitive.

<comment><USER15> When I fly I know I'm always pleased to know that my flight didn't cost an extra big Mac because the plane was excessively safe.

<comment><USER16> Excessively safe meaning safer than the regulated margin of safety. Nobody really demands unlimited recursive safety margins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Duplicate of previous day's: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648826](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648826)

</comment><comment><USER18> This was in the related articles at the bottom. I wonder how the decision is related the test? I wonder how much say legal had. That is, if they end up in court is human-made easier to defend than robot-made?

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boein...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boeing-abandons-its-failed-fuselage-robots-on-the-777x-handing-the- job-back-to-machinists/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Also a positive note, the carbon fiber wings bent 3x expected max

>bent the jet's giant carbon composite wings upward more than 28 feet from their resting position. That's far beyond the expected maximum deflection in normal flight of about 9 feet >All this simulated the loads in a flight maneuver where a pilot would experience a force of 3.75 G, compared to the maximum of 1.3 G in normal flight

>All this simulated the loads in a flight maneuver where a pilot would experience a force of 3.75 G, compared to the maximum of 1.3 G in normal flight

<comment><USER20> Yep, and it is the fuse that broke, not the wing!

The reason fuse has an "expiration date" set by the amount of pressure cycles is because aluminium breaks more due to microcracks and other metallurgical fatigues, than due to ductile failure.

A composite lined fuse could've extended the life of an average airplane long beyond its moral obsolescence, and for this reason airplane makers are afraid adopting it.

<comment><USER16> What is "moral obsolescence"? If you mean "normal obsolescence", planes are used for a long time, so what would draw the line between normal lifespan and excessive?

<comment><USER20> Think for yourself

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Lol. Open the page, popup appears

"Sign up for breaking news!"

</comment><comment><USER22> It seems to me that if nothing ever fails short of the 100% test its probably overengineered, since the 100% already includes a significant safety margin.

Alternatively if nothing ever fails the test, then they could also just stop doing these tests, since the analysis would already be shown to be sufficient.

</comment><comment><USER23> click bait title. the plane basically passed. that is why a retest will not be required.

</comment><comment><USER24> What gets me is what is the point of a limit to test to if you are not going to enforce it.

If 1% less is ok (Boeing) test to 1% less,

if 3% less is ok (Airbus) make the limit 3% less.

Not enforcing a limit smells bad and does not fill me with confidence.

Strengthening the failure area will change the failure modes to other areas and may well make it fail at an even lower limit as other areas will be bending more to make up for the reduced deflection of the area that is strengthened.

Not re-testing it after a design change like this worries me.

</comment><comment><USER25> [https://web.archive.org/web/20191128190035/https://www.seatt...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191128190035/https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boeing-777xs-fuselage-split-dramatically-during-september-stress- test/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Powerful destructive winds are only going to become more common over the next decade. Boeing really should do another test to make sure.

<comment><USER27> Wind is never going to make an airplane experience this level of loading. Think about it: an airliner going 900 kilometers per hour is flying into an apparent headwind of 900 kilometers per hour, much faster than any windspeed it is likely to encounter. The fastest winds that an airplane has to deal with are the tradewinds.

The biggest risk to aircraft from high winds is during landing and when on the ground. On the ground these forces are not going to cause a crash (for obvious reasons) and during landing the bigger risk would be a wing strike or ending up next to the runway. In neither case would the strength of the plane as observed in these tests be a huge factor.

What _would_ cause such loading is a long dive or fall and subsequent recovery:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006)

<comment><USER26> Thanks for clarifying. I felt afraid when I first read this story, because of the recent unpleasantness with Boeing. Now I see that it's unlikely for this level of stress to occur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "we're not going to re-test. We failed the test but it was close enough"

Yeah that makes me feel safe Boeing, real safe. Specially given your history now.

Planes used to pass these tests with flying colors and they've been pretty safe. Have we forgotten already that planes used to break in half in the sky when there's heavy turbulence? 3.5G sounds like much, but it is also not that much. There's a reason why the test needs to be passed at a certain level, not just below.

Heck otherwise, how about I pay 99% of my taxes, mortgage, pass 99% of my exams, etc. What is this?

Note: before you read and trust the articles too much, airline planes have been WELL above 3.5G already in the real world. The fact that they're not supposed to go there does not mean they never do.</comment>


A vote for me is a vote for dipshit businesses everywhere - <AUTHOR> http://blog.asmartbear.com/rejecting-raising-vc-money.html

<comment><USER2> The 9% success rate is uncannily similar to the music business success rate with major artists. It's long been known that's a 1-in-10 business.

Strangely, within the music business the independent small labels can frequently achieve 1-in-3 rates. Why? Because when they fail they fail small, it didn't cost them a great deal. So they don't need a great deal to recoup those losses. Amongst the indies it's perfectly fine to have a sleeper (slow but constantly selling) album... they're hits still as they recoup their cost x5 which makes money for everyone involved.

To me, angels are closer to the indies and VCs are closer to the major labels. So you've got to ask yourself, is your venture the next big pop/rock act? Or are you the arty, experimental and original new band with limited appeal but with staying power?

</comment><comment><USER3> _Some VC, "When you play it safe you nearly always lose."

To understand what's really being said here, you have to replace the word "you" with the actual antecedents. So: "When you play it safe you nearly always lose" should read: "When founders play it safe VCs nearly always lose."

But founders often win._

Money quote.

</comment><comment><USER4> Bootstrapping to the end, I didn't start trying to break out to make my own success to have to take crap from anyone but myself and my customers.

To hear a VC talking about $25 million as a small time exit is disgusting.

<comment><USER5> To a VC this _is_ a small time exit. I'm not surprised they would be talking about it this way.

<comment><USER6> That's only true if they're investing big time money - clearly the new breed of VC's (aka Super Angels) are going to be just fine with such small time exits.

The disgusting part is not that they don't want small exits, it's that they're so arrogant as to suggest that entrepreneurs who don't help feed their out- dated business model are somehow doing something wrong.

It reminds me of the cable companies back in the day: "But have you _seen_ internet video? It's horrible!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's worth talking about the math the VC community is doing here. They are seeing this 9% success rate that was quoted in the above article, and thinking "we need those 9% to be home runs."

This logic makes a huge assumption: the success rate of companies is fixed, and not related to how hard founders swing.

My hypothesis is that if the investors didn't push the founders for home runs, the 9% number would grow. If true, it really invalidates the math a lot of these guys are using.

The attitude really should be about maximizing expected value - and I don't think we have any data showing that always swinging for the fences does this.

<comment><USER8> This talk of swings and home runs leads me to a comparison.

Could it be that we're looking at a Sabermetric/Moneyball shift in thinking? One of the most counter-intuitive parts of the sabermetric approach is to focus on avoiding outs rather than getting hits. A player that gets on base 40% of the time and hits 10 home runs/year is more valuable than one who gets on base 30% of the time and hits 25 home runs/year. In a full season, the second batter will generate ~70 additional outs (enough to fill 2.5 entire games!)

What if a V.C. decided to avoid "outs" at all costs? What if they managed their portfolios not to avoid losing money rather than to swing for the fences? If they could keep their write-offs around 50%, then 3x and 5x returns become money makers and the occasional 10x return becomes a home run.

<comment><USER9> Costs (due diligence, fund raising, overpriced salaries, legal) would make a VC like this unprofitable.

Banks are the solution for institutional small-scale low-risk finance, via debt. Retail/commercial bankers are excessively conservative in some ways now (due to regulations); the traditional "small town bank" which originated and held loans to small businesses, property finance, etc. within a specific community was a much better option. Banks have a low cost of capital (from deposits), and should have minimal marginal overhead making each loan. By having "community membership" as one of the metrics for giving a loan (i.e. you've lived in this town for 20 years, and have been a customer, are known to be able to run a certain kind of business, ....), due diligence costs for making a reasonable new loan are a lot lower than for a VC.

Angels (who effectively use sweat equity to cover their own overhead) are the other.

The thing you are missing is that each series A deal a traditional VC does has a 50-100% the invested capital cost in overhead, opportunity cost, etc. At that point, shooting for 3x returns becomes a lot less appealing, especially over 10 years.

<comment><USER7> 1) The overheard issue is something they can fix, they simply don't have any incentives to. Limited partners will have to crack down before we see any change.

2) Are there really many banks ready to fund a technology startup's series A? Even if its a business model with a high chance of a 5x return?

<comment><USER9> Banks as they exist today are a non option for most business financing. This is sad, and a big change from the peak of us civilization (18xx to maybe 1969)

Specialist banks like svb and square can use debt to let you stretch an angel round (equipment financing, maybe invoices on enterprise sales, maybe an a to b bridge loan) but are not a replacement for equity risk capital in seed or series a.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The dipshit business point was made more elegantly before and it's valid. I remember seeing some video of TechCrunch 50, where Kevin Rose sat at a panel with other tech celebrities and criticized all the proposals as small ideas or something along those lines.

In the general population there is an expectation that the word "startup" implies you're working on something world changing. While the term "starting a business" implies doing something incrementally better, no huge world change required.

I also remember 37Signals railing against impractical world changing ideas and VCs, saying how developers should build quality applications, find a few thousand users and be happy with that. Chances of success are higher, a few million is enough money. That seems to be what a lot of startups are doing and what certain schools of investors are encouraging.

Maybe the confusion is over the word "startup" meaning world changing tech being separate from "small business" in the popular imagination and that of VCs.

Now of course many who get angel funding go on to VCs if their idea starts growing like crazy and VCs would prefer to invest at the earlier stage for more profits.

But how many of the companies in seed camp incubators have no intention of being the next big thing? How many people are discouraged from dreaming up a big idea because of all the talk about 1/20 success rates for those vs 1/4 success rates for small ideas? It does look like a trend against the popular perception of startups.

</comment><comment><USER11> You know, this internets thing is disrupting more than just old-school businesses. It looks as if it's also disrupting tech-based VC businesses too. And the world marches on...

<comment><USER5> Specifically with respect to software. I'm sure there are plenty of hardware/biotech startups out there that still need VC money to get anywhere significant.

Having said that I'd be very interested to hear about successful bootstrapped hardware companies. I think Dell might be an example but my google-fu is failing me today.

<comment><USER12> "Michael Dell dropped out of school in order to focus full-time on his fledgling business, after getting about $300,000 in expansion-capital from his family."

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

<comment><USER13> Wasn't that quite a lot of money in 1984 dollars (maybe closer to $1m in 2010 dollars)?

It's less than what you'd normally get from VCs but it's still a lot more funding than a couple of guys in a basement living off of ramen.

<comment><USER14> $629,483

<http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Putting aside business models, valuations, and the amount of each investment, there are 2 reasons this founder would rather talk to an angel:

1\. It's more likely to be his/her own money.

2\. They probably earned it themselves.

Don't underestimate the effect of these 2 points on their relationship with you.

I would expect a little more TLC from someone who's investing the result of their own hard work over someone who's more concerned about third party ROI.

<comment><USER16> I'll ad a third:

3) Several experiences watching startups I worked for get:

a) forced by VCs to spend money poorly that resulted lower exits.

b) bent over a barrel playing games trying to get funding from vcs

c) lose direction because the CEO and executives were spending more time chasing money than focusing on the product

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> hmm... I agree with the article about the current trends don't seem to favor VC. To a founder 25million is a win and to a VC it's not.

But my advise is still to swing for the fence.

What I figure is your first company goes towards creating something that can make you FU money(25million would do). Your second and after goes to hitting homeruns, google type.

I think VC should now start targetting already successful entrepreneurs, since making 25 more million wouldn't neccessary cause that much change in the outcome of their life. As a second time round entrepreneur, you would be more than likely looking to make your mark on history and by creating disruption.

I think VC can use this to their advantage. Also, a second time round entrepreneur is more likely to be successful.

</comment><comment><USER18> Bloggers should stop writing dipshit blogs so they can sell to Engadget, Huffington Post and what not.</comment>


RMS on evil developers, spying social networks, the legitimacy of Anonymous - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/news/richard-stallman-free-software-875/

<comment><USER2> RMS is likely to be judged very kindly by future historians for fighting the good fight. But let's hope that it's not because his worst fears have come to fruition.

<comment><USER3> Oh yeah, he's one of those guys that nobody wants to talk to when he's alive and in everyone's face, but will be widely praised after he's safely dead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with a lot of RMS' views, but I would be very interested to know what he thinks about computer games (PC, and consoles). Can anyone shed any light on this?

The way I see it, games are much like an interactive film. It's an experience someone has personally created for us. It's more of an art than a computer program. I'm aware of open source games, but I wonder how an open source model would affect a game like Battlefield 3? Cheating would surely be rampant. I certainly do not expect Terabytes of data when I watch a film so I can make the changes I want, nor do I expect sheet music when I buy an album. Games are as much of an art as music & films.

What about consoles? They are viciously protected from custom modifications. I don't agree with this, I believe it's our hardware and we should be allowed to do as we wish (hey Microsoft, blowing fuses in my NVRAM without telling me is really not cool).

<comment><USER5> Similarly are distributed computing projects like SETI at Home which (last I knew) were explicitly NOT open sourced because allowing others to see the code would explicitly undermine their trust in the computations done remotely.

I haven't seen RMS address that either; I think his views would be interesting.

<comment><USER6> Can't such software be reverse engineered?

Also, the home page for BOINC (<http://boinc.berkeley.edu/>) says it's open source.

<comment><USER5> It's been sometime since I looked at it, but you can see <http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=7531773> that as of 2003, it was closed source

 _The FAQ states they decided to make the code proprietary "for security reasons and for science reasons as well"._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it's great that RMS still generates debate. These are issues that we should always be thinking about and debating. What a wonderful legacy.

</comment><comment><USER8> I really respect many of Stallman's views but I still have trouble reconciling GPL'd software and sustainable commercial innovation. Doesn't the GPL level the playing field to such an extent that the competition can undercut your business model with trivial ease? I would hate to put a bunch of work into something that I planned on making money from only to have perfect copycats overnight. Selling support only scales well for some software.

<comment><USER9> His views on free software come from a very different idealized reality than what actually exists. From the GNU Manifesto:

 _In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming._

<comment><USER10> Which has some truth in it. Our world is already struggling to keep people employed despite continuous productivity gains. As developers, we know the next 20 years will probably be low risk for us, but many professions are endangered. Who will be a truck or taxi driver when the Google car will work fine? Who will need secretaries when Siri will be evolved? New technologies are just not creating that much jobs.

Note that I am not disagreeing with you, I just suppose that RMS may not be completely wrong.

<comment><USER5> 1995, Jeremy Rifkin talked about the End of Work, saying we should plan for how to structure society as it was coming. He was ignored, and now we seem to be living the results of not planning for it.

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

 _The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era is a non-fiction book by American economist Jeremy Rifkin, published in 1995 by Putnam Publishing Group.[1]

In 1995, Rifkin contended that worldwide unemployment would increase as information technology eliminates tens of millions of jobs in the manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. He traced the devastating impact of automation on blue-collar, retail and wholesale employees. While a small elite of corporate managers and knowledge workers reap the benefits of the high-tech world economy, the American middle class continues to shrink and the workplace becomes ever more stressful.

As the market economy and public sector decline, Rifkin predicted the growth of a third sector—voluntary and community-based service organizations—that will create new jobs with government support to rebuild decaying neighborhoods and provide social services. To finance this enterprise, he advocated scaling down the military budget, enacting a value added tax on nonessential goods and services and redirecting federal and state funds to provide a "social wage" in lieu of welfare payments to third-sector workers.[1]_

<comment><USER11> It's shocking that only a minority of people in technology know about post- scarcity concepts. Un-employing others is our main goal and when we cannot sustain an income from supporting an application, technology has done exactly that to us. Support has either been crowd-sourced or enough able people are able to add enhancements themselves. We should be the ones that are most aware of these consequences and simply move on to new technologies and projects instead of artificially limiting our products.

<comment><USER12> It's not the technology workers that are getting hurt the worst by this change, though. It's all the other people in businesses affected by and attached to the tech industry, who don't have the flexibility to pivot quickly or at all.

Moving on to new technologies just puts more people out of work with nothing to replace their old jobs.

Additionally, technology is neutral regarding human nature. As we grow older, we are less comfortable with shifting around and there are attachments that make it more difficult.

Sure, it's great to be rootless and fancy-free when you're in your 20s, but when you hit 40 or 50, you have to start thinking about how it's all going to end.

<comment><USER11> So should we just stop developing technology because all those jobs have to be preserved? You seem to take jobs as something that is inherent to the existence of the individual. The book recommended by the parent (and some others) question that position and explore alternatives and the transition from a society rooted in that belief and one that doesn't require the existence of jobs.

Technology is not about putting a few people out of "work", but about freeing people from it altogether.

<comment><USER13> Jobs are something inherent to the existence of individuals until we somehow trick the political class in to implementing basic income, which is absolutely not happening any time soon. All this talk of "post-scarcity" tomorrow ignores the fact that no jobs causes a lot problems for people today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's really ludicrous we all know the business model of record labels and movie studios, of selling the right to use and possess something that costs nothing to duplicate, is dead while we are still delusional about our ability to sell software licenses...

<comment><USER15> "costs nothing to duplicate"

I have a challenge for you. Make the last Metallica album in your home without making copy. How long do you think it will take you? How about Photoshop?

If you find it's difficult, it's because the original is what costs money, not the duplicate.

I also find it interesting that you can't see the value in bits that "cost nothing to copy".

Yet, with currency, it's just ink and paper (physically worth considerably less) that represents much more in value. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp when we've already been using it for many years before digital content.

</comment></comment><comment> steve-howard I was particularly shocked by the following:

"The Anonymous protests for the most part work by having a lot of people send a lot of commands to a website, that it can't handle so many requests. This is equivalent of a crowd of people going to the door of a building and having a protest on the street. It's basically legitimate. And when people object to this, let's look at who they are and what they do. Usually they are people who are doing much worse things"

So he's saying that DDoS attacks are legitimate, and anyone who doesn't think they are is up to no good?

<comment><USER16> If I understand, he is first of all referring to DDoS attacks where many people voluntarily traffic a server with common computer setups, not when a small number of people pull off major attacks using extra resources such as unwilling puppets.

<comment> steve-howard It's still an intentional denial of service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> From the article: "Stallman is the man behind the concept that every computer program must be free for users to study and modify as they want."

Does he suggest software _must_ be free?

We know he doesn't say the must be free in cost. Does he say they need to be free as in speech? I've never heard him say that. I don't think of him as telling others what they _must_ do.

I feel like a lot of the polarization around what he says comes from misunderstanding. This feels like one of them.

<comment><USER18> Yes. Can't wait to see AirTrafficControl-buntu.

<comment><USER19> Free air traffic control software doesn't really sound absurd. Software doesn't give one air traffic control centre any advantage over another. That's not how they compete if they compete at all, so they may as well give it away.

<comment><USER20> Yes, it's not like ATC are suddenly going to start installing every random nightly release on their production systems.

I would imagine they would stay safely (maybe even years) behind the cutting edge. But common availability of the source code would make it easier to share information that may be able to speed up acceptance testing or flag up issues.

You could argue it's actually _more_ dangerous for an airport to rely on software that is opaque, for all they know there is some edge condition in there by accident (or on purpose) that could cause mayhem.

I am going to assume however that ATC software source code is rigoursly audited by a trusted partner of the airports using it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _With software patterns the US has become a dangerous place for software development, including innovative software development_

That's close to how I feel about patterns as well.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, that Gang of Four, man. Almost as bad as the original Gang of Four.

<comment><USER22> Four horsemen of the scrumpocolypse?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think its unfortunate that RMS speaks at RT - a channel that broadcasts Russian government propaganda and weird conspiracy theories.

<comment><USER24> He's in Russia this month, as I recall the FSF newsletter's information.

<comment><USER23> And what? He couldn't find any credible media to speak to?

<comment><USER25> Credible like who? FOX? CNN? Al-jazeera?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can I temporarily combat the brain fog from lack of sleep? - non-entity My sleep schedule the past few months have been completely shocked. Often I'm up all for an entire night or two not being able to pass out till the sun is up (or on workdays, not till long after). The resulting day I typically have pretty bad brain fog and have more trouble than normal focusing or keeping a good train of thought. Anything I can do to temporarily suppress this? <comment><AUTHOR> 10mg of THC Sativa edible. With possibly 80-160mg of caffeine whatever amount that is your trigger threshold.

THC helps to slow everything down a bit so you can clear the fog and focus one a singular thing. The caffeine to keep that edge going.

Also extremely conducive even if you're not a fan of this genre of music but game/trailer sound tracks like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1P5U7NlVoA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1P5U7NlVoA)

Music with lyrics or jazzy makes you need to focus on the music.

Alternative is this incredible little gem of youtube:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD4dMdpNe_I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD4dMdpNe_I) incoherent background noise.

However, as few have said, bottomline is you can't circumvent sleep deprivation. Best you can do for yourself is take a power nap but even with sleep, because of the crap happening. I still recommendation the above suggestion.

<comment><USER2> Start smaller with the THC if you're inexperienced- like 2.5mg.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good recommendation. I'm not even a casual user, but may be once every few months where 100mg would last me almost a year at 10mg bites. But yes, definitely start with a tiny bite. Who knows, may be the "micro dosing" may be enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My current strategy: Use emacs org-mode as a crutch to store information that keeps falling out of your Working Memory.

</comment><comment><USER4> Welcome to the club :( Sorry to hear - and no, I don't think there are temporary solutions, it's extremely hard to make up for significant lost sleep. Having a few nights of good sleep definitely helps with the brain fog but there are studies (and, of course counter-studies) saying that damage acquired from loss of sleep is mostly permanent. You should get to the root of why you are having such bad nights and eventually fix that root cause. If this keeps up I'd suggest seeing a specialist (but first you can try to observe what's happening when you can't go to sleep, is it your thoughts racing? Is it the short-term feedback loop of social media and HN?)

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean with mostly permanent? A period of bad sleep can surely be devastating, but will it really mean you're damaged for life just because of that…?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe you should consult with a psychiatrist as soon as possible. The brain chemistry is really delicate and you should not risk medicate yourself. If you start taking stimulants, soon you have to increase the doses (homeostasis) and it will lead to more problems.

I had a similar problem: I couldn't sleep longer than 2 - 3 hours without waking up randomly. Now I'm taking a medicine every day and it's helping me regulate my life. Trust the science. Use the technology to have a happy plain life.

</comment><comment><USER7> Take a day off and sleep whenever you feel tired. You may need some day sleep.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think, there is too much energy accumulated in you due to various reasons, making it difficult for your body to relax. I'll suggest take deep breaths, (exhale time should be greater than inhale). Just try to relax body with each exhale. If possible, read first two chapters from the book `Attention revolution - by B. Alan Wallace`, and practice it for few days. If nothing works, seek professional help either from doctor or meditation teachers.

</comment><comment><USER9> I find short naps are good if you have the discipline to keep them so. I've tried a few different timers setting and for me 17 minutes seems to work for enough time to fall asleep, feel refreshed but not him deep sleep where its hard to come back.

But really fixing the wider problem is best. The usual answer is exercises, sunlight and avoiding screens for a hour or so before bed.

</comment><comment><USER10> nothing legal, however if youre willing to bend the rules a little then there are some options available:

Amphetamines (adderall/vyvanse/amfexa etc): these will easily clear the fog from lack of sleep, the downside being theyre expensive

Modafinil: this chemical was developed for narcolepsy but was soon found to be useful for cognitive enhancement, itll keep you going up to 48 hours with almost no loss of focus or ability and in some cases youll even be better. the other up side to this is that Modafinil is very cheap

<comment><USER11> > _...itll keep you going up to 48 hours with almost no loss of focus or > ability_

That isn't true. Sleep deprivation will significantly impact your cognitive abilities even so, perhaps just not as much as it otherwise would.

Quality sleep on a regular basis is the foundation for anything sustainable, regardless of drugs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> No way around it, sort out your sleeping routine.

</comment><comment><USER13> keto, low carb and carnivore diets are known for helping with brain fog. By experience, fasting is the best for that.</comment>


Please suggest some talented designers who can beautify a web app - <AUTHOR>

Im finished my web app. Its has a very simple design. Its a list of links (think hacker-news/reddit). Now Im looking for  a high end developer who can help me bring the look and feel of the site up a few notches (by producing a couple of mockups). The reason I need a high end developer is because the site design is very constrained since its just a list of links. The only other major element of the site is the header.<p>Where can I find high end designers who are willing to work on such a job? Please suggest any designers  that you know are quality and are available. <comment><USER2> Take a look at www.dribbble.com and find one you like. Virtually everyone there has their Twitter id linked so you could contact them.

Another alternative is browse designers on Sortfolio: www.sortfolio.com

<comment><USER3> +1 to both of these suggestions. Essentially, find designs you like, then find who did it and send them an email/Twitter intro.

If you're going after well known designers though, don't be surprised if their quote is higher than you think it should be. If someone is well known and in high demand, then their price goes up accordingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can help you out. Based in Australia (though will be in US for all of August) but have done loads of work via email/IM for clients in the US. Can provide contacts as a reference.

</comment><comment><USER5> You're switching from the word 'designer' to 'developer' in this post and the titles are definitely not interchangeable

</comment><comment><USER6> E-mail me: firstname.lastname@example.com - I don't have time to work on anything myself but I can forward you to a few people.

</comment><comment><USER7> Easy peasy, I'll give you some CSS3 love.</comment>


Representing Graphs by Knuth Trees (1974) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~jlp/75.knuth.trees.pdf <comment><USER2> I have a hobby project that deals a lot with graphical data structures. Think like choose-your-own-adventure-stories, mostly hierarchical, but with some DAG and even an occasional loop (but those are annoying). Each node just has a list of what it points to, and all my programming just does a lot of recursion. It's doable; while I have a number of graphs, none of them will have more than 1000 nodes, so I'm not actually hitting performance problems. But I wonder if I'm missing something; each time I think of a new graph-based feature (show only the part of the graph that leads to this category of nodes; display the graph while hiding everything downstream of node X; possibilities are endless) I'm spending hours doing recursive programming making sure I get it just right. I know there are plenty of graph algorithms out there but they're all quite academic and it's hard to grasp the utility of each one - even here, I grasp what the Knuth Transform is but it's harder to grasp what it gains me. Is there something I'm missing for a good next step, like graph theory for dummies?

Also, I like storing my data in mysql for other reasons so I don't want to switch everything wholesale to a graph database, but I wonder if I should be loading the graphical part of the data into something in memory, like a graph cache, that I can easily query rather than having to do all the recursive programming myself. Does something like that exist, a simple free library that acts as an in-memory graph db?

<comment><USER3> It shouldn't take you hours to code these new features. And 1000 nodes isn't enough that you need fancy performance from a library.

I suspect you want to extract a few basic functions from what you've already written, and then combine them for new features. The posibilities are _not_ endless, there's only so many things you are likely to want to do on a graph, and the vast majority (like TFA) are not useful to you

Here are some common operations: * list everythign reachable from a given node, depth first order * list everythign reachable from a given node, breadth first order * make the reverse graph (edges point the other way) * find the strongly connected component a node is in (a more general way of identifying loops)

Then you can build more complex queries out of those, rather than coding them every time. e.g.

> show only the part of the graph that leads to this category of nodes

get the reverse graph, for each node in the category, find everything reachable in the reverse graph, and union them together in one set

> display the graph while hiding everything downstream of node X

get the set of everything downstream, then list everything depth first, skipping stuff in the set.

It's not super efficient, but I don't think you care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The "Knuth Trees" or the "Knuth transform" that the article refers to in the first sentence is the subject of _The Art of Computer Programming_ section 2.3.2 "Binary Tree Representation of Trees". (This is under 2.3 "Trees" in Chapter 2 "Information Structures" of Volume 1 "Fundamental Algorithms.") In TAOCP it is just called "the _natural correspondence_ between forests and binary trees".

The idea, roughly, is that corresponding to each node of the original tree (or forest), in the (resulting) binary tree, the left child denotes "first child [in original tree]" and the right child denotes "next sibling [in original tree]". In TAOCP there are 15 pages about this idea (including exercises) (plus 4 pages of solutions). In this paper here, the author calls it the Knuth transform, and extends that idea to a larger class of graphs. (This is all in the first paragraph of the paper, but just posting this here in case the context is helpful to someone, as I didn't know all this before just now.)

</comment><comment><USER5> If you like that then you are going to love this:

"Seven Trees in One" by Andreas Blass. [https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9405205](https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9405205)

</comment><comment><USER6> Why is it useful, today, to represent graphs using Knuth trees? Especially when not all graphs are thus representable?

<comment><USER7> I think this is what he called threaded trees. Just space efficient.

HTML dom has the necessary links. Let's you do dfs without a stack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hey, I used to run this webserver! John Pfaltz is a nice guy, glad to see his work up here.</comment>


What It Feels Like to Work in a Supportive Environment for Female Engineers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/artsy-blog/what-it-feels-like-to-work-in-a-supportive-environment-for-female-engineers-3c994a001007 <comment><AUTHOR> It was really important to me to challenge the current narrative as well as represent us (the female engineers at Artsy) in a way that was authentic and genuine.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm super proud of @xtina_starr for talking about a pretty hot topic. You've got this.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an awesome post. Thank you, @xtina_starr!

</comment><comment><USER4> Amazing post @xtina_starr</comment>


First, let's kill all the angels: Congress takes aim. - <AUTHOR> http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/04/17/first-let's-kill-the-angels/

<comment><USER2> Looks like whoever reposted John Mauldin's weekly newsletter chopped off the section that needs to be included to be allowed to repost it. Jerk move. Because John's newsletter is awesome - he's best when discussing the implications of skyrocketing sovereign debt - and because you might want to subscribe to it, here's what the article omitted:

 _You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print as long as the following is included:_

 _John Mauldin, Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to:_ <http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore>

</comment><comment><USER3> Duh, big banks would win. Think about it, if they remove competition from the private equity market, then they monopolize capital financing.

This revision is nothing more than a monopoly bid.

<comment><USER4> I wish more people got this. Regulations, especially complex and expensive ones, always favor large incumbents in a market over smaller or newer competitors. Expensive regulatory requirements are a regressive tax within the business world.

The time and complexity is often as bad as the money. Time and complexity is something smaller ventures are incapable of dealing with, while larger ventures can easily just throw their big bureaucratic might at it.

We seem to be rushing headlong toward a kind of Soviet economy in which huge mega-corporations aligned with the state run everything. (Actually, fascism is the proper term for this... but lumbering dinosaurs like the Telcos, GM, etc. are a little more Soviet in their drab outward appearance.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> While there is inherit risk involved in angel investing, it has been a fairly straightforward method for increasing one's wealth. It is becoming increasingly clear (to me at least) that this congress and administration are using regulation and governmental control to stifle and limit the production of wealth that cannot be taxed at a high rate. In most cases, an angel investment will be taxed as a capital gain, and usually one that is considered long term at a lower rate.

<comment><USER6> I'm sorry, but this really sounds like a conspiracy theory. There are much saner ways to raise taxes on the rich -- even if you were inclined to be sneaky about it.

<comment><USER5> An example of a saner way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets?

If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs. People with less than two million in assets are probably not full time investors, but rather are working-wealthy. They have day jobs and they don't have staff accountants or lawyers.

But I could be wrong. Maybe this cap will have a negative impact on Angels. If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators, whose votes will be critical in the passage of the bill, and get an amendment

<comment><USER8> > How many angel investors really have less than $2.3 million in assets?

Wealth seems to follow a power law, so there are probably over 2x as many at $1M as there are at $2M.

> If I had to guess, I'd say that the increase in the cap was to try to cut > down on Wall Street shysters ripping off doctors and marketing VPs.

How about some evidence that this is actually occurring?

Heck - how about some evidence that "Wall Street shysters" are even trying to get money from angels?

Note - Madoff was running a completely different racket, one well within the purview of the SEC, and they didn't catch on for decades. (He was supposedly stock picking.)

> If so, the thing for Angel firms to do is contact your California senators,

Angels don't have firms. Yes, there are some groups, but most angels aren't in them.

Most folks affected this don't even know that it's something that they should be concerned about because they haven't done the angel thing yet. This means that they never will, and the folks who they would have funded likely won't get funded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I want to know who, by name or agency, thinks raising the 'accredited investor' thresholds is a good or necessary step.

Accredited investors aren't asking for this change. The participation of private investors (of any net worth) in regular equities was a non-factor in current financial troubles, or indeed any financial troubles of recent decades.

If lessons from the recent crisis are what's motivating new net worth requirements on investments, how about new rules to block submillionaires from buying homes? That's be more rational as a reaction to the mortgage bubble than blocking millionaires from investing in companies!

(I don't expect even lame-duck Dodd to tell average Americans they're too easily duped to own homes; we should be equally outraged he wants to tell millionaires they're too easily duped to make private equity investments.)

<comment><USER10> Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, Oracle and all other large tech corporations benefit if the money to startups is cut off or diminished.

Getting rid of potential competition through legislation is a tried and true method.

<comment><USER11> Google uses startups for hiring inflow, I doubt they want to choke them off.

<comment><USER12> Starving startups of cash makes them easier to buy.

<comment><USER13> But it also reduces the number/quality of the startups worth buying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am naive on this issue, and I am going to assume good faith on the part of Congress for a moment. Presumably they are trying to protect someone - whom? It seems to me that angel investors were not the ones devastated by the subprime mortgage and banking crises. This appears to be a fix in search of a problem.

</comment><comment><USER15> Please stop repeating the same bullshit that seemingly every VC pundit is repeating about the Dodd bill. The "2.3m" figure is a total fabrication!

The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation. The SEC was already empowered to alter the requirements independently of legislation (since they were not set by legislation), but they've never done so.

The figures quoted are pulled out of their ass — they just took the old figures and adjusted for the last 30 years of inflation since they were set. Nothing in the bill says the SEC has to adjust it all at once or at all.

<comment><USER8> > The bill does not set new requirements at all. It just explicitly authorizes > the SEC to adjust the income & net-worth requirements for inflation.

Oh really? Let's look at what the relevant section, 412, actually says.

19 SEC. 412. ADJUSTING THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR STAND20 ARD FOR INFLATION.

21 The Commission shall, by rule—

22 (1) increase the financial threshold for an ac23 credited investor, as set forth in the rules of the

24 Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, by

25 calculating an amount that is greater than the

[page break omitted]

1 amount in effect on the date of enactment of this

2 Act of $200,000 income for a natural person (or

3 $300,000 for a couple) and $1,000,000 in assets, as

4 the Commission determines is appropriate and in the

5 public interest, in light of price inflation since those

6 figures were determined; and

7 (2) adjust that threshold not less frequently

8 than once every 5 years, to reflect the percentage in

9 crease in the cost of living.

<http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf>

If you're going to argue that "shall" doesn't mean that the SEC is being told to compute a number and apply it, please provide supporting evidence.

<comment><USER15> I had read it before as authorization, but you're right that it does command the SEC to raise the numbers at least every 5 years starting now, but it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC.

The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly justify.

<comment><USER8> > it leaves the increases completely up to the SEC.

Not at all - it specifies the factor to be used.

They seem to have some leeway in the initial bump, but since they've been given their marching orders, it's absurd to think that they'll deviate much. Note that there will be no legal basis for arguing for such a deviation.

> The "2.3m" figure is bullshit, the maximum that the SEC could possibly > justify.

Suppose that they go with $2M instead of $2.3M. Will you regard that "yeah, I was correct, you folks were crying wolf"?

I'm serious - what's your "I was wrong" number?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Worst...written...article...EVER! This is the point (found 2 pages or 954 words down the article)

"There are three changes that should have a particular effect on angel investors, a catch-all category which includes everyone from friends and family members who invest in a startup, to unaffiliated wealthy individuals, to side investments made by venture capitalists acting on their own.

"First, Dodd's bill would require startups raising funding to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and then wait 120 days for the SEC to review their filing. A second provision raises the wealth requirements for an "accredited investor" who can invest in startups - if the bill passes, investors would need assets of more than $2.3 million (up from $1 million) or income of more than $450,000 (up from $250,000). The third restriction removes the federal pre-emption allowing angel and venture financing in the United States to follow federal regulations, rather than face different rules between states."

He also makes the point that registering with the SEC is expensive ($100,000+ in legal fees) and that he believes the "accredited investor" limits will be raised even further. The rest of the piece is just filler.

(for anyone down voting this let me point out this article goes on for 9 printed pages and doesn't even explain who benefits from these clauses. That's just bad writing)

<comment><USER17> Yeah, I read a solid 2 pages of hyperbolic claims about how "devastating" this will be and how important angels are and how they're great and everything before I gave up on learning any actual facts and clicked back here. Thanks for the summary.

How does the bill define "startups", for one? I'm perfectly capable of believing there will be regulations which have adverse unintended consequences on startups from this bill but that sounds extremely onerous -- is that for IPOs, only? I'd actually agree with that. If it's for raising seed money or anything up through a series C, I'd disagree, very strongly in the case of earlier rounds. The article doesn't tell us which it is, though.

<comment><USER8> > is that for IPOs, only?

IPOs were "hurt" by Sarbanes Oxley, the reaction to Enron. (No, there's nothing in it that would have affected Enron.)

> If it's for raising seed money or anything up through a series C, I'd > disagree, very strongly in the case of earlier rounds. The article doesn't > tell us which it is, though.

While that article may not have provided every piece of information that you'd like, Google is your friend. Above I quoted the relevant section AND provided a link.</comment></comment></comment>


The Weighted Blanket campaign that raised over $3.5MM on Kickstarter is a scam - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1620645203/gravity-the-weighted-blanket-for-sleep-stress-and/comments <comment><USER2> Well that sure got ugly in a hurry.</comment>


Ask HN: How much money do you spend on media subscriptions per year? - <AUTHOR> Just curious.
Every publication and every brand wants me to subscribe individually now. I refuse to do that when the content in the articles is mostly the same from site to site and less than 20% of the titles even appeal to me.
I save a lot of time and money not feeling like I am 'missing out' and fill that time with reading, writing, coding, designing, walking, meditating, sleeping. <comment><USER2> I am about to dump Netflix and get HBO for a while. I will never have more than one subscription.</comment>


Ask HN: I am looking for a light-weight, fast database - <AUTHOR>

What do you recommend? <comment><USER2> I've had good luck using sqlite3 for both a hobby project (a photo organizer <http://github.com/kghose/Chhobi>) as well as for work (neural data analysis)

<comment><USER3> I've had good luck with SQlite as well, until I have multiple writers, or even concurrent readers or writers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's the use case? Are you looking for mobile platform compatible database, or for web backends?

</comment><comment><USER5> MongoDB is 'lightweight' in the sense it's easy to setup and persistence of both simple and complex objects is a breeze. The query interface is a bit ugly but it may be worth a look.

</comment><comment><USER6> It depends on what you need. sqlite if you need SQL queries /indexes,etc, try leveldb if key/value store will work, its fast and micro.</comment>


The Completely Different World of Python with IBM i - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/ibmi/developer/general/different-world-python <comment><USER2> This is a great move. AS/400, now IBM i, is a workhorse known for going practically years without any serious problems and good overall architecture (for its time lol). You set them up, code your apps, launch the stuff, and they just keep going and going and going.

Now, they've added to their all-in-one, largely-self-managing system the Python language with its easy maintenance, reliability, and productivity. Fits right in. Adding Python is always a smart move. The combo of IBM i and Python will be great for that community that's been stuck with IBM's crap software so far. Might get more of them on the other side, too, as they explore _fun_ programming. :)

<comment><USER3> From the job ad earlier:

> Some P/A's will take a rotating weekly shift to monitor the nightly job > process to ensure no program errors interfere with the completion of any > jobs running off hours.

<comment><USER2> Meaning _that_ deployment totally sucks lol. The companies I've worked at pretty much forget they're there minus one person or so that looks into periodic maintenance, etc. Usually the people who use specific, legacy apps on it know it's there because it greets them with an AS/400 banner. Otherwise, most people don't know it's there because it handles backend stuff, it doesn't crash necessitating tech support, and nobody shows up to work on it. It's just... there.

Basically, what cloud and SOA's are trying to achieve these days. Not there yet, but at least they're innovating. And some use interfaces and languages that aren't horrible. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "You'll find not only the usual date and time type operations but also functions for zipping files, processing XML, handling CSVs, and sending and receiving emails."

Oh dear god. This level of isolation is probably the worst outcome of being locked into a completely proprietary ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's a better informed article on this topic on the same site here:

[http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/ibmi/developer/general/python-i...](http://www.ibmsystemsmag.com/ibmi/developer/general/python- intro/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow that was an adventure, on the negative side I've now stared at RPG source code.

So many winding passages in enterprise computing, so many people wandering around them.

</comment><comment><USER7> Aren't they _very_ late to the game? Why even port PHP in the first place? PHP is even more brain damaged than C/C++ and it should not be supported at all if you want to sell your platform on _security_. In contrast, Python has real documentation, has proper module organization, and is popular for scientific computing. IBM has seriously been living in a cave. No wonder they are failing.

</comment><comment><USER8> Since the commenting to individual posts is not available then anyone who is interested can read some of my responses here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10200586](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10200586).

Please feel free to comment further.

</comment><comment><USER9> Hello IBM, welcome to Python!

</comment><comment><USER10> "Using OPO (Other People's Objects)"

Oh boy! Who is Jon Paris, and what is this article? It's as if somebody was writing about python circa 1997.

<comment><USER11> Very odd. It's like somebody's been hiding in a cave since 1995 and just discovered python, object-oriented programming and HTTP.

<comment><USER12> He's previously been writing RPG for the AS/400\. That's pretty much exactly like living in a cave since 1975.

<comment><USER13> People write for the AS/400 in 2015?

What?

<comment><USER12> Yes. Check your local job listings.

Why? Never underestimate the inertia of a working legacy system.

<comment><USER14> I did just that, check it out: "Position is in a well-lighted office environment"

[http://jobview.local-jobs.monster.com/Programmer-Analyst- Job...](http://jobview.local-jobs.monster.com/Programmer-Analyst-Job-Andover- MA-US-153495020.aspx?ch=NEWSBOSWO&jobPosition=1)

Zwicker & Associates - a debt. collection agency.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


3 ways to measure Product Market Fit on your game - <AUTHOR> http://danielgguillen.com/product-market-fit-on-your-game/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys!

I would love to know your opinion, in the F2P industry most of the game are never release, the big companies have 10+ team creating prototypes and practically no one survive.

In this post you will find 3 ways to know if your game has Product Market Fit, meaning that you are ready to launch and acquire millions of players.

If you know other ways to identify Product Market Fit, leave a comment below.</comment>


Man blows up part of house while chasing fly - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54051423 <comment><USER2> We've all been there - the article doesn't say if he got him so this is clickbait.

<comment><USER3> It wasn't omitted.

> However, the fate of the fly is not known, news outlet Sud-Ouest notes.

Here's an apropos song animation that every Canadian of at least a certain age knows about how evil flies can be: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f389hIxZAOc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f389hIxZAOc)

<comment><USER2> And the internet classic The Animal

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwSmCyL_c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLwSmCyL_c0)</comment></comment></comment>


Panic Button: Lessons for the Tech-for-Good Sector - <AUTHOR> https://www.theengineroom.org/panic-button-lessons-learned/ <comment><USER2> This was a design-by-committee project that didn't have a clear singular problem it was trying to solve. Reading their goals they intentionally mixed the simple aspect of a "911" for human rights workers with a mishmash engagement-type soft goals.

Just looks like a recipe for failure regardless of funding.

Another way to look at it, it was a success if measured in terms of raising awareness of the problem.

<comment><USER3> It also seems like they were trying to abuse/repurpose OS level functionality (the power button). I imagine that was difficult on Android, and the article completely fails to acknowledge that this is actually impossible on iOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> " _Despite our best efforts, we have not been able to secure any substantial external funding for the project since being awarded £100,000 as runners-up in the Google Global Impact Award in June 2013. In part, this is due to what in hindsight was a short-lived boom in funding and excitement around "tech 4 good."_ "

There's a lesson here somewhere for those who are optimistic about changing the world.

<comment><USER5> Yup. Make money first. Once you have stable income, you can use the excess to effect as much change as you want.

<comment><USER6> When has that worked out for the greater good ?

Not trying to sound snarky but I'm really trying to think of an example but can't find one.

<comment><USER7> or Andrew Carnegie, long before Gates or Musk... he gave away more than 70 billions in today's dollars...

<comment><USER8> ...and kept thousands of workers in poverty despite the massive success of his company through monopolistic business practices, killed a few workers putting down a strike, and built a country club that damaged a dam, causing a flood that killed upward of 2000 people.

Donations are nice, but it's not obvious to me that Carnegie was a net positive (or Gates or Musk, for that matter).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I really appreciate it when people produce thoughtful looks at project failure like this. If I had Too Much Money, I'd definitely fund an annual prize for the best startup-ish project failure reports. There's no better source for information on advancing the state of the field, but so much is lost when companies just quietly shut down.

</comment><comment><USER10> Open source : [https://github.com/PanicInitiative/PanicButton](https://github.com/PanicInitiative/PanicButton)

Donc si c'est vraiment utile, ca ne disparaitra peut etre pas

</comment><comment><USER11> Also to note is that organisations like Amnesty are incredibly inefficient and big money wasters. Paying mid level employees 5000k net + 2000 for rent is not exceptional. So I'm skeptic when they need "more money".

<comment><USER12> Sources on those figures?

<comment><USER11> A friend who works there. But it's quite commonly known.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When it said:

> help us use technology to prevent unlawful detentions

I thought they were talking about the Firefox Extension called Panic Button from ~10 years ago that we used in school to hide games and show an education site 'Preventing detentions'!

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't get it. The reasons they give are:

1) Only had £100,000

2) Would need more money to make the app deal with false alerts.

3) Would need more money to "keep up [...] our engagement with users."

What does this mean?

<comment><USER15> It means they need more money

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The followup article has much more useful detail: [https://www.theengineroom.org/panic-button-lessons- learned/](https://www.theengineroom.org/panic-button-lessons-learned/)

<comment><USER16> Changed to that from [https://www.theengineroom.org/panic-button-retiring-the- app/](https://www.theengineroom.org/panic-button-retiring-the-app/). Thanks!</comment></comment>