Hackers: Intern for the Summer, Get Paid for a Year - <AUTHOR> http://jobalchemist.com/Intern.html

<comment><USER3> I'm missing the part where an unpaid intern can support living in SF and working up to 7 days a week, esp in software where pretty much every internship in industry pays quite nicely

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right that it's not the right opportunity for everyone. For people with a little more flexibility (or who are already in the Bay Area) and want a more entrepreneurial summer experience that coding for a big software company, we think this could be pretty sweet.

You'll put SW into people's hands almost immediately, get to work through the business implications of what you're building, and more. We also hope that this becomes seriously lucrative for the intern(s) over the course of the next year.

Also keep in mind that this is an experiment, in many ways. We haven't tried this before, and we don't know anyone else who has, either. It's a relatively risky internship in that sense, but one with pretty significant upside potential, too.

<comment><USER4> I think it's a very cool experiment. I could see it working very well. However, no pay and only 10% of the profits doesn't seem like such a great deal.

To me, getting a full time job and doing affiliate marketing at night--keeping 100% of the profits, seems like it would be a better deal.

There are many very profitable affiliate companies in San Francisco that both pay well and offer revenue sharing deals to their workers. These companies really know what they are doing in the lead gen/affiliate space and offering a decent base salary is small peanuts to them.

<comment><AUTHOR> You could be right, but I suspect the groups of people that enjoy building software and doing affiliate marketing have a relatively small area of overlap.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I think you're right about that.

I read the post a little too quickly and it seemed like more of an affiliate role than a software dev role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the worst YC clone yet. $0 in funding, for a 90% equity stake.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha _it's an internship_. It's also the only internship I've ever heard of that will give the interns an actual revenue share. We've spent eighteen months building the software, domain knowledge and business processes that they'll get to leverage while learning, having fun, and making money. You're right, crappy deal.

<comment><USER5> I know, I know. There's just a very tiny slice of talent for which this is a good deal: if you can't make a business that generates, say, $40K in a year, this internship pays worse than most others. If you're able to do much better than that, though, the 10% revenue share seems pretty minor, when you could pay some of the upfront costs and get 100% instead.

It's the only software internship I've heard of with those terms, but in New York lots of startups looking for biz-dev interns will compensate like that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right. We would all be extremely disappointed if their work brought in just $40K in the next year. We have more _paying_ work than we can get to at this point, and we're confident that we can do well for everyone with this arrangement.

<comment><USER5> If you have existing paying work that you're adding people to, it sounds more like you're in the staffing industry -- where paying someone 70% of what you're billing them out for is about the limit. I suppose you could argue that there's more uncertainty, but not enough to justify that big a difference.

I do like your company (when I was unemployed, Startuply was the only job board I _liked_ checking), but I think this internship needs to be tweaked pretty seriously before it's a good deal for everyone involved.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're definitely open to suggestions.

Our thought with this was "come work with us for the summer, let's build cool stuff and make some money, and we'll pay you a piece of what you earn _for 12 months rather than 3_. We get help when that we can't pay for off the bat, and they get (1) cool work experience and (2) paid for a year.

We thought then and continue to feel that this is a fun, unorthodox, kinda risky and potentially very lucrative way for some college kids to spend the summer. There's nothing malign about our intentions, but we're resource- constrained enough that we have to be creative in our approach.

Just because it's a rev share rather than a flat fee, though, doesn't mean it's like the staffing industry. The staffing industry pays people below- market wages in return for letting them be entirely reactive about finding work. Our approach is to have interns share some risk in return for an upside that isn't capped.

<comment><USER5> If you're open to suggestions, here's how I would have done it:

1) offer a stipend. It's going to be modest, but you're a startup, so "We'll pay for your lunch, and give you enough money to rent a place with roommates," is enough.

2) Instead of ownership of revenue, give people ownership in the properties they create. Getting 10% of something questionable is okay, but being in charge of whatever new, successful lines of business you create is great.

3) Drop the '12 months' line. Tell people that you're looking for folks who can create good sites, and that if they can do it in a few months, you'll bring them on board full-time. A cut of revenue might be the right way to do things, but it makes you sound like an affiliate marketer masquerading as an internship, rather than an internship with a novel compensation scheme.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. We're trying to put together the cash for a reasonable stipend, and will if we can. We won't give equity for intern/contract type work; almost no one goes, for good reason. That being said, we'd love to be able to bring someone on full time after the summer, assuming things go well. The summer/12 months was designed to appeal to college students who compose the traditional intern market...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like your approach! It would be nice to at least offer them a bed in your broom closet. When we were starting out we paid our summer interns a little above minimum wage (one of their mom's was a tough negotiator) and let them sleep on our couches.

They still talk about it as one of the best summers of their lives, and for the ones that didn't stay with us, it definitely helped them get better jobs later in life.

Part of your pitch should be (and might be) an involvement in more than just low level coding so that you attract people who understand that working for a startup at such a raw stage will be a unique experience that both you and they hope will be priceless.

<comment><USER7> I can't tell if this comment is serious or not.

<comment><USER6> 100% serious. One of them still works for us, 10 years later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ok. But what stops me from paying myself $0, working a profitable project over summer and having all the 100% to myself during the year?

I apologize in advance if I'm impolite but it sounds like a ripoff and is even worse than Rentacoder's slave wages.

In fact, here is my counter-proposal: come to Seattle where I live, work on my ideas and if you're successful I will give you 50% of the profits. It's like: work for a summer get paid for five years! I may or may not give you office space but I guarantee that I will micromanage you and give you advice even though I don't actually know your area of development.

<comment><AUTHOR> Forget "ideas." We have working, proven software and a platform for extending it. We have hard won domain knowledge and battle-tested business processes that deliver. We have a pipeline of revenue-producing products that we can't get to because we're short handed. As PG has suggested, ideas on their own are worth nothing. We have the product and the adoption.

It sucks that this sounds like a ripoff to you. Can you elaborate on why? It also seems like you're trivializing the challenges of "working a profitable project over summer." This is not an either/or situation, either - most people probably aren't trying to figure out whether to (a) intern or (b) start their own company. The two are generally pretty distinct.

So the only thing that stops you is everything else.

<comment><USER8> Well, this is what it sounds like to me.

1\. We have some projects that bring us money. 2\. We have some ideas. 3\. You develop those ideas without any pay. 4\. If they succeed, we'll give you measly 10%. 5\. Our platform is worth 90% of your revenue-generating product.

Microsoft also has products and platforms for extending them. Adsense is a battle-tested business process.

And as much evil as MS is, they don't practically own your company just because you happened to built on their platform, whatever that means.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Please... Leave this ad for late night infomercials.

Use jobberbase.com, build your own, and get 100%

<comment><AUTHOR> [In what way is this worse than offering an unpaid summer internship, which seem to proliferate everywhere (especially in an economy like this)?]

There are a number of white label job board solutions out there. I think ours delivers a far superior user experience, but that's open for debate. I can say _for sure_ that there's more to building successful sites than sticking an implementation of someone else's software on a page somewhere.

We think we're working on some pretty fun stuff, and would love to have some smart help for the summer. Because we don't have the cash on hand to pay interns $20-$30/hour, we're trying a deferred compensation arrangement - <USER2> we want to pay more, in the end.

I do have some extra sham wows I could sell you, though.

<comment><USER10> This is better than an unpaid summer internship, but unpaid summer internships suck. I'm sure you can find some desperate students to take this, but I still don't think it's a good deal. Even if you're not offering that much now, I think it'd be better if you'd pay some fixed amount for the work they're doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The programming is the hard part. 10% is ridiculous.

<comment><USER12> It's an internship position. Plenty of CS people take internships that pay minimum wage, or nothing at all. So far as I can tell, even Spolsky's interns get a flat stipend. Royalties are uncommon even for fulltimers and contractors.

I wouldn't do it, but it's not a BS offer.

<comment><USER13> I don't know of any CS students at my university that are taking minimum wage this summer. All the places I interviewed at had a floor of about $20/hr.

Since the ad stated that they want students from very good universities, I can't imagine their prospects would be worse.

That said, if someone takes this position, they will get far more experience than working most other gigs.

It's not necessarily a bad offer, though the ability to obtain food and shelter are usually factors I consider in my job search. However, I think the comparison to minimum wage or unpaid internships is invalid. We ain't Poli Sci students.

<comment><USER14> I'd agree with you. I don't know much about cs students, but engineering internships usually always pay. While looking for engineering internships the range seemed to be between 12 and 20 an hour.

I have offered to work for free, but whenever I have done that, I have been informed that the internship paid. Also, I have only volunteered that when the internship was close to home. I understand that the startup might not be able to afford to pay, but I don't really know how affordable it would be for me to volunteer and have to pay for food, housing, and transportation.

The offer would be a whole lot more attractive if you offered housing, even if housing was just sharing a room with another employee.

<comment><USER12> Ok, just for the record: $12-$20/hr is about the range I'm arguing internships seem to land. The original claim was that interns should be making $5k/mo.

I agree with you that the big thing missing here is housing. On the other hand, if you mostly plan on picking up locals, housing doesn't matter. We pay interns, but we still end up with Chicago and NYC people for the same reason.

<comment><USER14> I just reread my post. I was referring to the startup not paying, not anyone else.

I agree with you. Royalty is a very surprising offer. But their most competitive applicants will probably be local. I don't really know how to judge the expected worth of the royalty, and the cost seems like it would be expensive for anyone not local.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This would go over better if it was rev share + housing stipend.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm with you, and we're definitely looking for a way to make this happen.</comment></comment>


Builder who suffered heart attack at work 'had life saved by Apple Watch' - <AUTHOR> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7000655/Builder-life-saved-by-Apple-Watch.html <comment><USER2> I'm shocked that you couldn't tell your heart was racing that fast. 200+ BPM is cray high. Either way, it's an interesting story.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't assume most people would think to check their pulse in a situation like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like a native ad.

</comment><comment><USER5> A builder who can afford iPhone and apple watch and wear it while working, genuine news!</comment>


A VC: If You Are Looking For Something More Entrepreneurial - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/05/if-you-are-look.html

<comment><USER2> I did an internship at Microsoft in the summer of 2005. Every year, interns who are incoming seniors are invited to Bill Gates's house for a barbeque, and I was lucky enough to be able to go. At that time Google was so hot -- radically new and good, we thought, practically a developer's paradise -- but Bill kept saying that they were just the "media darling" of the moment. He said he'd seen it before, and soon enough Google would be just another company. A lot of the interns at Microsoft that year were probably rejected from Google -- maybe even _most_ of us. "You just don't understand", we were thinking, "Google is different". There was no way _Bill Gates_ could understand, of all people. But actually he was totally right.

<comment><USER3> I had a similar experience at Amazon.com. I was at an internal conference brainstorming "the next big thing" at Amazon. Google's perks were brought up constantly as needed for retaining employees.

Jeff Bezos responded that the reason Google got so much attention and talent was not because of the perks, it was because they were the "Agenda Setters" of the day, and Agenda Setters come and go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have two friends at Google, one entry level in AdWords and another a senior exec in the social media division, and they told me they have had enough due to these reasons Fred listed.

It was bound to happen one day.

</comment><comment><USER5> This begs the questions - who is the next Google?

Some place with a lot of growth ahead, human decency and appreciation of hackers values.</comment>


Colorls – A Ruby script that beautifies the terminal's ls command - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/athityakumar/colorls <comment><USER2> This looks really, REALLY cool.

But as someone who lives in the terminal, it's not something I would use at all. __To me __, the fancy fontawesome glyphs PLUS the colors are information overload [1]. It really feels like overkill. I 'm not trying to discourage anyone (including the author) from writing these things, and clearly the author is a very good programmer.

If it was an exercise in making something beautiful in the terminal, then the author succeeded in this endeavor. Making a good looking, _consistent_ terminal UI is ridiculously difficult, and each column is pretty and formatted. This program feels like it has had a lot of TLC. Honestly, I hope the author continues to make cool programs in the terminal; they clearly have a knack for it :)

As a minor aside, maybe consider changing the executable name from `lc` to something else; it conflicts with the `lc` executable for Mono (at least on Arch[2], and Ubuntu[3]). But that's just a minor nitpick.

[1] this is my opinion, I want to make this as clear as possible

[2] [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/mono/files/](https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/mono/files/)

[3] [http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/lc.1.html](http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/lc.1.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Acknowledged. The executable has been renamed to `colorls`, which can optionally be aliased in the shell configuration file. :-)

<comment><USER3> colorls is already in use, at least on OpenBSD it's a package that provides colorized output for ls (though not to the extent of this effort).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another solution to the problem of coloring `ls` output is to use the `dircolors` command, which configures the colors `ls` uses in it's output. Piggybacking on `ls` has other benefits: if you change `ls` colors, it'll get picked up by other programs, for example zsh auto-complete and the `tree` command, among others.

For those interested, there are pre-existing dircolors config files that people have shared, like dircolors-solarized[1].

Of course, the OP's program does more than just ls, in that it has icons and a `--report` flag.

[1]: [https://github.com/seebi/dircolors- solarized](https://github.com/seebi/dircolors-solarized)

</comment><comment><USER5> Oh my god colours. I'm an emacs user who uses shell mostly in shell-mode (i.e. a dumb shell, no curses), and dealing with these colourful commands is so annoying. Developers, please check what $TERM is like, and if it's "dumb", don't print coloured output. Main offenders for me: Ruby stuff, the new apt(8) on Ubuntu.

That aside, this is not my cup of tea (I prefer dired, and don't mind the lack of icons, tho they might've been a nice ornament), but yet it looks nice, kudos. But colour me not if [ x$TERM = xdumb ].

<comment><USER6> I agree, more stuff should work with $TERM=dumb, but how are you not using eshell?

<comment><USER5> I do most of my stuff through Emacs' own facilities and don't use the shell that often, and every now and then knowing me some Bourne shell proves useful, so I stick to it, I completely forget otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been accustomed to using trapd00r's LS_COLORS[1]. It differentiates the colors by file types enough to make it useful, without being overly distracting. And doesn't require installing ruby. :)

[1] [https://github.com/trapd00r/LS_COLORS](https://github.com/trapd00r/LS_COLORS)

<comment><USER6> On macOS I have this in my .profile:

       alias ls="ls -GF"
       export LSCOLORS="Exfxcxdxbxegedabagacad"

-G Enables colorized output

-F Display a slash (`/') immediately after each pathname that is a directory, an asterisk (`*') after each that is executable, an at sign (`@') after each symbolic link, an equals sign (`=') after each socket, a percent sign (`%') after each whiteout, and a vertical bar (`|') after each that is a FIFO.

The filename/dirname is colored and the character denoting the type is not colored, so I can tell what is part of a name and what denotes the file type.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been using [https://the.exa.website/](https://the.exa.website/) and it works fairly decently. Does the same coloring and tells you git status. Doesn't do icons though.

<comment><USER9> Of course someone links to exa right as I accidentally upload a broken linux version... of course!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't understand the very tricked out shells people have. Surely all those colours and bits of information are just noise that distracts over a longer shell session?

<comment><USER11> There are lots of folks here for which the shell interface is usefull, but difficult to use. Using colors and graphics can be super helpful for folks with dyslexia, along with asymmetric fonts (thing I learned this year: comic sans scores incredibly well as a font for people with dyslexia). So don't poke fun.

I don't have that problem, but I don't see any problem including redundancy. I have come to like Powerline-hs's git support because even if I only half- glimpse a window I immediately know the status of the repo from it just by the colors. I don't see why I _wouldn 't_ want to maximize the channels of information coming back to me.

<comment><USER10> I'm not arguing for a monochrome shell with no information; my current prompt is:

[user@hostname:path](git branch)$

There are colours highlighting these sections. What I'm referring to is the multi-line prompts with dates, times, uptimes etc that surely just clutter up the history view?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ew way too much noise for my liking. Having said that I did use k[1] in the past. I prefer a more minimal setup these days.

[https://github.com/supercrabtree/k](https://github.com/supercrabtree/k)

</comment><comment><USER13> It looks like this uses the github logo for the .git folder. Why not the git- scm logo?

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com](https://git- firstname.lastname@example.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sadly, the font icon seems too tiny when used on the terminal. Only the GitHub logo seems easily viewable.

Feel free to share your thoughts here : [https://github.com/athityakumar/colorls/issues/33](https://github.com/athityakumar/colorls/issues/33)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> ls -G

will get you colors in macOS. I'm sure a lot of people will like the icons but they're not for me. Around last year I got burned out on things nagging for my attention by bouncing, booping, turning red, popping up a pretty picture. Turning off all notifications on my phone was a good first step.

おまけ:

Here is the "ultimate" OSX ls that I found on the internet some time ago:

alias l="ls -aeGhlO@"

Of course that is too much information sometimes, so I kept a vanilla ls too:

alias ls="ls -aG"

<comment><USER15> With ls from GNU coreutils (ie. on Linux) you can get colored output with `--color=auto`. An alias for `ls` with this option is frequently already there in the systemwide .bashrc or equivalent. Personally, I use something like this:

        alias ls='/bin/ls -hlFA --color=auto'

which also displays `/` at the end of dirs, `*` for executables and so on.

<comment><USER16> GNU/Linux _

<comment><USER15> You know, I could have written something like "On Linux you can get colored output from `ls` command ..." etc. without ever mentioning GNU at all. I went out of my way to say "GNU coreutils" (also because it's possible to install these tools on Mac and other *nixes) and you're still unsatisfied? Sorry, but that looks like you're being overly pedantic for no good reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you like this, check out even-better-ls[0]. It does pretty much the same thing but does it just by setting LS_COLORS, so no need to run a separate script. I also find the spacing it uses much nicer.

[0] [https://github.com/illinoisjackson/even-better- ls](https://github.com/illinoisjackson/even-better-ls)

</comment><comment><USER18> Slightly off topic but: I was trying to figure out how he got a github icon in there then found out it uses: [https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd- fonts](https://github.com/ryanoasis/nerd-fonts)

Very cool. Definitely using this for some of my CLI tools.

</comment><comment><USER19> Interesting use of icons.

Personally I find many different colors confusing. I've a wrapper script that highlights permissions etc. rather than using colors to distinguish them. It also makes the output of ls consistent across linux/osx/solaris/... which it does by adjusting the output from the existing ls implementations on each platform

[http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/l](http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/l)

</comment><comment><USER20> In the demo, is that a Powerline status, solarized palette?

<comment><USER21> Let's check the first paragraph of the readme…

> Here are the screenshots of working example on an iTerm2 terminal (Mac OS), > oh-my-zsh with powerlevel9k theme and powerline nerd-font + awesome-config > font with the Solarized Dark color theme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Beautiful!!!

</comment><comment><USER23> icons are new and cool. I'd like to see that added (as an option) to regular ls.

<comment><USER24> You can get the same behavior on regular ls using LS_COLORS environment variable like this:

      export LS_COLORS='di=01;34m \033'

this is only for directories but... you got the idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Good work, OP.

</comment><comment><USER26> What is the speed like? Ruby isn't exactly known for being the fastest.

<comment><USER2> disclaimer: I'm not using the fonts, but it attempts to render them anyway.

Here's what `time ls` and `time lc` produced, in a directory with 517 files:

> ls --color=tty -l 0.01s user 0.00s system 93% cpu 0.007 total

> ~/.gem/ruby/2.4.0/bin/lc 0.14s user 0.01s system 98% cpu 0.159 total

It's definitely noticeable, especially if you use `ls` day-in, day-out. But it's nothing debilitating.

<comment><USER27> Probably it could be made faster by working a little with InstructionSequence [https://ruby- doc.org/core-2.4.1/RubyVM/InstructionSequence.h...](https://ruby- doc.org/core-2.4.1/RubyVM/InstructionSequence.html) and creating a "compiled" file to save the parsing time.

I played with it on the day they released Ruby 2.3. It's not meant for distributing code across machines and it could fail on the same machine after some updates. It's probably not worth it to shave 152 ms on an interactive command.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you use the Google Authenticator app? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Did. Now mostly use TOTP in 1Password or from a Yubikey. Google Authenticator becomes difficult to use with more than 7-10 entires, I had over 20 when I stopped.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why would you use something from a toxic, ad-supported company when there are plenty of privacy-respectful alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER4> No, I use Authenticator by Matt Rubin

</comment><comment><USER5> pass for ios ftw!</comment>


Why women earn less: Just two factors explain post-PhD pay gap - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/why-women-earn-less-just-two-factors-explain-post-phd-pay-gap-1.19950 <comment><USER3> Sometimes I think that this issue will get a news report similar to the one flash-forward from The Simpsons: "[year 40 years from now] 40 year study concludes: diet and exercise leads to weight loss".

Except it'll be: "40 year study concludes: choosing a less lucrative field, and putting more time into family leads to lower salary at work".

We can have all the equality possible. That doesn't change the fact that nobody can have it all. You can't be a primary caregiver and also have an equal career to someone who isn't (statistically, obviously). Traditionally it's been the father who has (for lack of a better word) neglected the children. If you want an equally successful career you need to choose to (again, bad word here) neglect the children.

There are only 24 hours in the day.

<comment><USER4> You've jumped to a conclusion the study does not appear to draw. It does not state that being a married _primary caregiver_ correlates with a lower expected salary. It says that being a married _woman_ with offspring correlates with a lower expected salary.

In other words that there is systematic bias against married women with children, not against all married caregivers with children.

The idea that men can be a primary caregiver still blows minds.

 _edit: s /leads to/correlates with/_ which I agree is an important nuance but doesn't change my point.

<comment><USER5> > It says that being a married woman with offspring leads to a lower expected > salary.

No, it doesn't.

It says that there is a correlation between being a married woman with offspring and a lower expected salary.

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

Furthermore, if you even had read the article you would've noticed the bit where it says "Weinberg says that the data cannot identify or tease apart factors that might explain why married women with children earn less — among the possibilities"

<comment><USER4> Okay. My point stands whether one writes "leads to" or "correlates with".

Thanks for suggesting the correction, and can I in turn suggest avoiding the phrase "if you had even read the article" in future. I'm sure you intended it to reinforce your remark, but I believe it actually tends to devalue any point it accompanies.

<comment><USER6> Small point: "if you even had read the article" and "if you had even read the article" are (imho) semantically different.

In the first the 'even' appears to mean "even in this very article, you may find this", where as in the second it appears to mean "if you at least put in the effort to read this article".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >>An unmarried, childless woman earned — on average — the same annual salary after receiving her doctorate as a man with a PhD in the same field, the researchers found.

This suggest that there is no sexism when it comes to compensation for your work, at least among PhDs.

>>That difference, they say, was explained entirely by the finding that married women with children earned less than men. Married men with children, on the other hand, saw no disadvantage in earnings.

Isn't it obvious? Women spend more time away from work raising children. I am ok with the world working that way. Women are better equipped to take care of a child in its first years and taking time to do that will naturally lead to making less money at work (because you spend less time there/learn less/have less experience). It makes sense to split roles in a family: a better equipped partner takes care of children and the other spends more time providing. That's efficient use of combined family human resources.

I see no reasons to fight it. Life is about choices if you want children you will not get as far in your career as people who prioritize career over everything else. It would be unfair to force the latter group to subsidize your lifestyle choices.

<comment><USER8> I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood. It's crazy expensive, eats up half of your life, and sometimes gets very unrewarding. But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society! A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear. Contrast with f. eg. the Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother.

At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best.

<comment><USER7> >>I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood.

I am not sure that's a problem. I've chosen to remain childless because of it and I've never ever met a person who would downplay how hard it is to raise children and not make their (and your) life miserable in the process.

>>But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society!

Well, my view is that we have way too many people. We have already taken all the land, we are polluting, cutting down forests and there are so many of us we even make the world a worse place to live for ourselves (let alone other species).

>>A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear.

There is a middle ground between disappearing and having way less people. Machines are coming, we don't need that many to sustain the civilization.

>>Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother.

Yeah, and Muslim countries are overcrowded, poor and unstable (at least vast majority of them).

>>At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best.

At the risk of sounding nihilist: I am not thankful and I will not bring children myself. Too much risk of them being unhappy, breathing polluted air and getting cancer. They would also use a lot of resources, produce a lot of trash and compete over ever decreasing land to build houses on.

I support people who are fit to have children (which includes resources, a good mate, mental health and ability to make them happy) but I don't think we should incentivize it today environment.

<comment> saiya-jin >> Well, my view is that we have way too many people.

true, but only for quantity. quality people, meaning happy, educated, highly moral, caring, contributing to society, etc people we definitely don't have enough. you cannot guarantee to raise such a person no matter how hard you try, but you (anybody) can do your best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Everytime an article like that is posted on Reddit or HN, comments point out that basically, women don't put up as much work as men, which explains their lower salaries. Case closed, not my problem, next thread.

The article gives two factor to explain lower salaries among women. The first one is that they chose less lucrative academic fields. The second one happens when the woman is a mother. Despite the speculation in this thread that it's because the woman spends much time raising her child, the article isn't positive about that, and even suggests another possibility (employers assign different responsibilities and salaries to these women).

Anyway, those are just intermediate explanations. The next step is understanding _why_ women make such choices. While I understand that it's tempting to just imagine that it comes from "natural" differences (whatever that would mean) between men and women on which we have no control, another possibility is sexism in the way we raise boys and girls differently. Let's not close the case until we've ruled out this hypothesis, or solved it if it happens to be true.

<comment><USER10> The problem is the lack of nuance in this debate. It's either "natural differences" or as you said > another possibility is sexism in the way we raise boys and girls differently.

Making this a binary choice is unnecessary, dangerous and in no way better than the "conservative" notion that women belong to the kitchen. Let's assume everything is solely based on social factors, adult women in this generation still won't have control over the way they were raised. It's unlikely that they will suddenly drop the behaviour they accquired over decades. And even if they could, why should they? If they're happy with their choices let them be. Instead we should work to value caregivers more, regardless of gender.

<comment><USER11> Since when did raising boys and girls differently become sexism?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's not fair to conclude that women just pick less lucrative fields; other studies have shown that as women enter a field, they are paid less than male colleagues, even for the same work, therefore dragging down the overall average compensation for the field. [http://m.sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/2/865.short](http://m.sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/2/865.short) So no matter what women do, whatever field they choose to enter will _become_ less lucrative, not due to their choice but because of inherent gender bias in pay.

Another factor that is not addressed in this study is the fact that even apart from societal expectations, the inequality of maternity and paternity leave policies don't fairly give moms and dads the chance to be equally involved in childcare from the very beginning even if they wanted to. [http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/\---dgreports/\---dcom...](http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_242615.pdf)

I don't see why we should be satisfied with the current situation for men, either. Why wouldn't we want a society that gives moms AND dads the option to be involved and present in their kids' lives without branding them as insufficiently dedicated to their work? I think it's totally unfair when I hear about friends who are dads who are met with skepticism when they want leave from work for their kids. There's no shortage of research showing that parental involvement, from both sides, from an early age is good for our kids.

</comment><comment><USER13> To see where the problems are:

If you are a married woman and you earn more than your husband, you still end up with more childcare responsibilities and less money than your peers.

If you are in a field that is dominated by women, your compensation becomes progressively less than pay in other fields.

If you are great or even best at what you do and chose to not have kids to remain paid well, you remove yourself from the human gene-pool, which is not favorable for humanity in the long run.

Because of norms and cultural understanding you are essentially throttling 50% of humanity's evolutionary and talent potential on the basis of a random assignment at conception.

A different study proves than economically developed countries with more conservative cultural norms regarding gender have substantially lower birth rates (Japan, Bulgaria), well below turnover rates for a healthy society (turnover rate: 2.1 children per family). The more shared parental responsibility an educated society has, the higher its growth.

So are cultural norms mortgaging the future of developed economies? How can this problem be fixed?

Now if you look outside of the US and in different social experiments here is how the problem has been solved before:

1\. Families live in the same area reducing economic mobility and slowing down overall econlnomy, but retired grandparents take over care for little ones.

2\. Providing universal childcare with high standards of care and education (partial example: Israel, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe etc). After some iteration society ensures that every child gets an equally productive start. Parents male or female are serving society with their best skill set. Population growth in an economically advanced society that leads to economic and scientific development as well.

</comment><comment><USER14> The most interesting aspect about all these articles is it appears the market is efficient. If there was a true gap in pay and productivity for women then it would make sense for companies to favor women over men when hiring. That there does not appear to be any gap is both reason for celebration (if an employee) and dispair (if an employer).

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm disturbed by this recent development that your career is considered more important than your family. Somehow, that your family is "holding you back", and the underlying message being that the career should be the focus of your life.

The family is the cornerstone of civilization! What's wrong with the traditional system where the mother and father work together to provide for a family? It makes a lot of sense to me that the father and mother specialize in different areas (fathers in workplace, women in childrearing) and that way kids both the material wellbeing and the emotional wellbeing to become well- adjusted people.

With all due respect, if the system has worked well for so long, why change it?

<comment><USER16> > I'm disturbed by this recent development that your career is considered more > important than your family. Somehow, that your family is "holding you back", > and the underlying message being that the career should be the focus of your > life.

Yes children may hold back your career. Why is is wrong to regret that fact? It does not mean that someone considers their career more important than family. In fact it suggests the exact opposite.

> he family is the cornerstone of civilization! What's wrong with the > traditional system where the mother and father work together to provide for > a family?

Civilisation sometimes exhibits negative behaviour, just like a family. It is so overwhelming common that it becomes an almost meaningless description. It could be loving and nurturing or abusive and hateful. You are really talking about the "traditional nuclear family" which could be just like Finland or a bit like North Korea. Without knowing which it is a meaningless discussion.

<comment><USER15> > You are really talking about the "traditional nuclear family" which could be > just like Finland or a bit like North Korea. Without knowing which it is a > meaningless discussion.

When we talk about the traditional nuclear family in the USA we normally refer to as the 1950s family unit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> To be clear: both factors may well be related to sexism.

 _" The findings support earlier research that suggests that parental and household responsibilities often affect women disproportionately, particularly in environments without adequate work–life and family policies"_

I would also question why women "choose" less lucrative fields of study. Perhaps various forms of sexism make the higher paying male dominated fields a harder choice.

<comment><USER18> _I would also question why women "choose" less lucrative fields of study. Perhaps various forms of sexism makes the higher paying male dominated fields a harder choice._

It could also be the other way around: Social expectations concerning men as primary income-earners makes it a hard choice for men to pursue less lucrative fields of study.

<comment><USER17> Putting aside the sheer absurdity of that argument -- women pursue biology PhDs because they expect to be supported by a man? -- it still wouldn't explain why women are under represented in higher paying fields.

<comment><USER19> How is there any absurdity?

If a person is expected to only choose a high paying field, but has two options open:

1\. High paying field they don't really like.

2\. Low paying field they'd love to do.

Then if there are social expectations that someone must make a lot of money, they will generally be forced to choose option 1.

The argument that men are forced by social expectations to choose option 1, and women are more freely able to choose option 2 is not 'absurd'. It may be correct or incorrect and would need some evidence to back it up, but please don't go around labeling positions you don't like as 'absurd'.

<comment><USER17> You ignored my explicit spelling out of the absurdity: that it assumes women pursuing certain advanced STEM degrees do so expecting to be financially supported by a man.

<comment><USER19> They're not going to need support for themselves with either STEM degree - <USER2> they're not going to be able to support a husband and children on a low paying STEM. And nobody would expect them to support a husband. Meanwhile a man would be expected to support a wife and children off his salary. This is the expectations difference you are calling absurd.

<comment><USER17> It is not the "expectations difference" that is absurd. It is the notion that highly educated women freely choose to opt out of high paying engineering/CS fields and pursue lower-paying PhDs because they plan on men supporting them. Is there a single shred of evidence to support this? Interviews with female grad students where they spell out this plan of theirs, etc.? Of course not. Meanwhile, tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS. [1]

[1] see for example _Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing_ (MIT Press) [http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing- Pr...](http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Clubhouse-Women-Computing- Press/dp/0262632691)

<comment><USER6> > because they plan on men supporting them

You added the idea of conscious planning. Replace "plan on supporting them" with "higher probability of getting support".

> tons of evidence around sexist cultures in engineering and CS

This has no bearing on the above claim though, does it? That men have a higher risk of being able to find a partner capable and willing on supporting them financially.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The sky is blue, web developers use Javascript sometimes, and Apple is a profitable company.

</comment><comment><USER21> [http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/](http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/)

Because of biology its very hard for the father to be the primary carer to children after being born.

Until men and women share equal parts of child rearing on average you wont see equal averages in other parts of society like income by age and career choices.

Women have shown a tendency to favor work life balance over income on average which means if you want to increase female mobility in male dominated jobs you need to increase working conditions for men, like equal entitlements for paternity and maternity leave.

Birth rates in western countries are already falling below 2.0 which is a reduction in population.

While some would argue this is a good thing for the environment, the west does not have the majority of the world population and a reduction in population could lead to geo political instability. The majority of the worlds population does not live under democratic rule, a reduction in population in democratic countries only is a troubling trend.

<comment><USER22> > Because of biology its very hard for the father to be the primary carer to > children after being born.

That's not true. Fortunately, we have in our society the technology (breast pumps) that allow women to save their breast milk for _anyone_ capable of caring for the child to use at a later time: fathers, grandparents, and even the mothers themselves.

They're not the most pleasant contraptions in the world to use (so I'm told), but I wouldn't characterize their use as "very hard".

My wife was the primary caregiver for our children the first 2-3 months, and then she went back to work and I raised them as the primary caregiver. For me to provide them breastmilk after was a bit inconvenient at times, but never "very hard" (they continued to be exclusively breastfeed until ~6 months, and breastfeed in combination with other foods until ~1 year).

<comment><USER21> Unless the mother continuously pumps her milk during the day her production will prematurely stop. Additionally the world health organisation recommends breast feeding for two years.

<comment><USER22> > Unless the mother continuously pumps her milk during the day her production > will prematurely stop

That's true. Most jobs in the U.S. allow women to do this, and those that don't are unfortunate and should be shunned if possible.

> Additionally the world health organisation recommends breast feeding for two > years.

Yes, but the APA in the US recommends 6 months exclusive/at least 1 year. In our case, it was a bit over 1 year for the first child (she wanted to stop), and almost 2 years for the second (had to be weaned, imagine he would have kept going until adolescence had we permitted /s).

A major reason the WHO recommends breast-feeding for two years is because of water quality issues in developing countries. We are fortunate (for the most part) to have water here in the US free of those pathogens that cause early childhood mortality.

EDIT: I'm rate-limited at the moment, but after carefully reading your reply below, I'd say we probably agree on most parts of the issue posed in TFA. However, unless I'm misreading your position, we appear to disagree on the relative fitness of men and women to raise young children (My position: thanks to technology, both men and women in the West are equally _capable_ of raising infants and young children. In my opinion, their fitness for that task depends on the person).

<comment><USER21> > That's true. Most jobs in the U.S. allow women to do this, and those that > don't are unfortunate and should be shunned if possible.

If only the majority of the US population had that kind of choice.

We are arguing on the same side on this one just quibbling over semantics, "the pay gap" is in my opinion a reflection of the asymmetric nature of raising children between employees and companies, this manifests by women choosing careers on average that are more flexible and have better non monetary benefits, these benefits dont have a positive effect on profitability of the companies/industries that offer them, therefore they have lower average incomes than others. until that burden is equally placed on all companies we wont see any change in the choices females and males make because they will be constrained by their situation (family etc) and that will influence their decisions. To suggest this situation is because of sexism and not capitalism is intellectual fraud the statistics just dont back it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Taking 2,4,6 years off from making a career leads to lower pay and earning potential. Good to know.

Sadly this is very hard to be countered even with affirmative action, because a person taking a break (for whatever reason, health issues, a single guy on a two year sabbatical will be hit too, maternity leave) is objectively weaker hire than a person that has built name and contacts in the same period.

Edit: Clarified lower pay

<comment><USER24> The article says pay is lower for women than men in the first year post PhD. It would seem safe to presume that the men and women were both working and neither group were at home with kids At the time point being measured.

<comment><USER18> I think venomsnake's point is that taking time away from a career for child- rearing has a long-term impact on earnings, not just that it affects the amount earned in the years spent on child-rearing.</comment></comment></comment>


Isotopic 256 - <AUTHOR> http://jamesdonnelly.github.io/Isotopic256/ <comment><USER2> Should you get a game over if you still have radioactive elements on the board? I think you should still be allowed to keep going, especially since you have less tiles and you are moving around with the assumption that things are going to start disappearing.

<comment><USER3> I don't think so. A move in 2048-like games is only a move if some pieces actually, well, _move_. If the board is full, there are no valid moves left, and any radioactive elements can never decay.

<comment><USER2> Right, it's only 2048-like. I think it being a derivative of 2048 doesn't mean it has to follow all the same rules. Anyways, I assumed the smaller grid was because you had the ability to wait for things to decay if you filled up the grid. It's merely what I was expecting, but maybe no one else feels the same way.

<comment><USER4> That was my expectation too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Stellar nucleosynthesis (somewhat simplified): [http://newbrict.github.io/Fe26/](http://newbrict.github.io/Fe26/)

<comment><USER5> This is what I was expecting once I figured out what Isotopic 256 was. Being able to go triple-alpha to carbon is key to stellar burning (it's why you're here, too).

Both games are fun, but Fe26 is going to keep me occupied for a long time.

Edit: I'm getting trapped at Mg24. Following the alpha-process, I should be able to stuff in another alpha to get to Silicon, but it's not happening, nor is it listed in the fusion rules below the game. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process)

<comment><USER6> Me too. Most of the time my board gets "full" of Mg24. It makes the game more interesting. It's a pity that it's only a missing entry in the game table and not a real nuclear phenomenon.

<comment><USER5> Be glad: If it were easier to get stuck in Magnesium, stellar evolution would be very different, and our beaches would be made of magnesium (and our oceans full of Magnesium salts).

Higher elements would still be formed, by the occasional fissioning of Mg by fast alphas/neutrons, but it would change observed nuclear abundances considerably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very clever. When I realized why the shakey elements were disappering (not having yet read the text above the game) I smiled.

</comment><comment><USER8> The fading elements is a nice touch to the game logic. It helps defend against simply mashing buttons (which works surprisingly well in the original).

</comment><comment><USER9> My jaw is on the floor. This. is. Awesome.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is the only version of "2048" that I've actually found that is fun and interesting.

Thank you!

I'd like to see a larger version though, 3x3 is fun but 4x4 would be awesome!

In other 2048 games all of the combinations carry the same weight, but this one has "goals" being stable elements, awesome dynamic!

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a great variant. I wonder if it would be possible to conceive a chemistry version that can could potentially teach people about atomic bonding?

A bit easy though, I had no trouble beating it after a couple tries.

<comment><USER12> How do you beat it? I always assumed the new pieces appears at random points and it's impossible to beat it other way than by coincidence?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very clever remix! I think it's too easy by default though --beat it on the first try without any issue. Maybe increase the "win" element to 512?

<comment><USER14> You're too good then ;) Haven't beaten it yet! Been playing for 30min now...

<comment><USER13> Honestly, my perception of difficult for 2048 clones is really skewed. After wasting hours playing it when it first came out, I'm now good enough at it that I can reliably get 2048 in one go every time I play. I've even gotten to 4096 multiple times. I've given up on 8192...

btw, if you want to know how to beat it, just google for a strategy guide. there's million of blog posts and stuff on the subject by now, and they're quite easy to follow once you get the hang out it -- not a bunch of edge-cases to memorize like a Rubik's cube.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is a bug in the code (IE11?)

If the board has:

       4He  4He  --
      16O   8Be  4He
       4He  4He  2H

and you move up then you get

       4He  4He  4He
      16O   2H   2H
       4He  4He  --

(The middle 8Be just dissapears.)

<comment><USER6> Edit: Just tested this in Chrome. Some atoms are readioactive. The radioctivity is not visible in IE11.

<comment><USER15> IE11 security feature I guess!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know the technical name for the disappearing elements, but I'm assuming it's intentional. Interesting twist! I don't think I'm smart enough to play this one though, I'll stick with doge.

<comment><USER17> There were only two sentences of text above the game, perhaps they contain the answer to your implied question?

"Join the elements and get to the tile with 256 isotopic mass! Watch out for unstable elements though, as these won't be around forever!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Playing for almost 2 hours not getting any further than lone Sr-128, now seeing all those "too easy, beat that 3 times already".

Uh. Did scientists came up with a brain replacements already?

</comment><comment><USER19> Definitely the best variant of Threes/2048 I've seen so far. Really nice work!

<comment><USER20> I think the HN plays 2048 was the best one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The numbers on the top left don't have any correlation with the elements, right?

</comment><comment><USER22> Just beat this game. Nice spin on things.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not sure what I did... but got 710...

</comment><comment><USER24> Pretty fucky that some things just disappear.</comment>


Tesla 'corrects' claim that anyone can make a self driving car - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/17/tesla-vs-bloomberg-over-george-hotz/ <comment><AUTHOR> "The company signs off by hinting that Hotz's offering wouldn't be safe enough to put into a vehicle, since getting something right 99 percent of the time isn't great if the error takes place at 70 mph."</comment>


Facebook to Add Its Name to Instagram, WhatsApp - <AUTHOR> https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facebook-to-add-its-name-to-instagram-whatsapp?pu=hackernewssmzpp3&utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=unlock <comment><USER2> > But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also been frustrated that Facebook > doesn't get more credit for the growth of Instagram and WhatsApp. > Associating those apps with Facebook could improve the overall companies' > brand with consumers.

Something doesn't quite add up here in my mind. Facebook is the one brand of the three that stands to benefit from this. Are Instagram's and WhatsApp's brands strong enough to buoy Facebook's brand?

> While studies show that Facebook's brand has been tarnished by its many > privacy scandals, and that users are increasingly becoming more aware of the > firm's data collection practices, Instagram and WhatsApp have largely > remained unscathed. Two 2018 surveys conducted by the privacy-focused search > engine DuckDuckGo found that more than half of Americans didn't know > Facebook owned Instagram or WhatsApp.

Once the word's out, prepare for their reputation to be scathed.

<comment><USER3> FB may deserve credit for growing Instagram.

But WhatsApp growth was entirely on WhatsApp. It had become THE de facto chat app outside the US well before FB acquired it. And this was despite it being a paid app at the time (I remember paying a few dollars for lifetime access).

I suspect WhatsApp would have penetrated the US market much like it has now anyways, because it's not like FB Has advertised WhatsApp at all. It's growth has been nearly entirely organic.

<comment><USER4> > And this was despite it being a paid app at the time (I remember paying a > few dollars for lifetime access).

In practice Android users would get their free trial period extended regularly. I'm not sure anyone but iPhone users (who are less price sensitive) actually paid for Whatsapp.

<comment><USER5> That's correct. Most people I knew really thought Whatsapp was free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems like a smart move. Facebook is getting ahead of potential criticism by regulators that it's unclear that Facebook owns these properties. Of course we all know that but your average joe probably doesn't.

It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of one company. Harder to "break up" a company that is deeply intertwined. And its more clear to users that when they are using Instagram, they are really using Facebook.

All in all, I don't get the negativity around this announcement. Makes perfect sense.

<comment><USER7> > It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of > one company. Harder to "break up" a company that is deeply intertwined

I don't get this logic. I'm old enough to remember when both Instagram and WhatsApp were independent companies.

<comment><USER8> "I'm old enough to remember something that happened in very recent history"... lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think is bad for instagram and whatsapp credibility. Facebook has the lowest credibility among the 3 brands. Makes no sense. People literally say i hate fb, thats why i use instagram. And people say, I hate fb messenger, which spies on them.

<comment><USER10> I agree but I think it's good for users

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this move ego driven? Instagram and WhatsApp are thriving because they are disassociated from Facebook. I think this can potentially hurt the other two apps.

</comment><comment><USER12> I like these changes. Some of my friends hate Facebook for various reasons, and making Facebook's ownership very clear (as opposed to buried in some terms and conditions) may encourage them to choose alternative chat software.

</comment><comment><USER13> I suggest Instaface and WhatsFace

<comment><USER14> and libra can be facebra.

<comment><USER15> more like licebook

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is good. I am surprised it wasn't done sooner. I think all products should have appropriate warning labels.

<comment><USER17> > But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also been frustrated that Facebook > doesn't get more credit for the growth of Instagram and WhatsApp. > Associating those apps with Facebook could improve the overall companies' > brand with consumers.

It is difficult to see how this could improve Instagram and WhatsApp's image though.

<comment><USER18> Yea, this comment from Zuckerburg seems strange to me or maybe I completely misread how people are currently viewing Facebook as a company?

Generally speaking, it seems like the majority of the people are talk to only have bad things to say about Facebook (the product), and positive things to say about Facebook's (the company) other products such as Instagram and WhatsApp. Seems like they would want to keep these brands are separated as possible.

<comment><USER19> Perhaps they should do it the other way around then. "Facebook, from the makers of Whatsapp".

<comment><USER20> Technically, the makers of Whatsapp had nothing to do with Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I guess the borging of those entities is in full swing now.

Golden Handcuff periods ended.

<comment><USER22> Good. The sooner both apps die the better. It is ridiculous how shallow and useless Instagram has become.

<comment><USER23> I find useful in the niche I'm interested in, VR artworks. The alternative are Facebook groups.

I think there are niches where the community isn't garbage. If you aggessively curate your feed you can get a decent experience.

<comment><USER24> Any links you can share?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Noticed last night that images for on Instagram are being served from Facebook's CDN, including the Facebook favicon. I would have thought the smart thing would be to keep a lot of distance from the three brands.

<comment><USER23> Oculus switched to this pattern early on and the content is delivered from facebook cdn. It must be cost effective to tap into the mothership vast resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> They should probably just rename the whole company Instagram instead.

</comment><comment><USER27> What about Oculus?

</comment><comment><USER28> Kevin wept.

</comment><comment><USER29> At least we have warning. Time for me to disable automatic updates for Whatsapp.

<comment><USER30> You're ok with Facebook owning Whatsapp, but not with the branding change?

<comment><USER29> Well I can't change that, and I can't avoid using it since too many people I know use it exclusively. I can, however, keep from having that filthy Facebook name on my phone.

<comment><USER31> Although I think this is an overreaction to a branding change, it just goes to show how toxic the Facebook brand has become.

<comment><USER29> I mean the same scientists built the V-2 rocket and the Saturn V but I'm glad they swapped the swastika out for an American flag. Looking at the Facebook name every time I open Whatsapp would be like looking at Donald Trump's face every time I select "English" on a website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Shame I can't short Instagram and WhatsApp.

<comment><USER3> You can buy SNAP. That would be the best play to short IG.

But SNAP is already heavily overpriced because it showed modest growth after many quarters of declines, thanks to the Baby lens. It's still continuing to lose increasing sums of money, so I wouldn't advise this play at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> wait... there's talk of breaking up tech companies, and a tech company immediately after decides to prominently brand itself on all its (nearly) monopolistic empires?

that doesn't seem like smart business to me?

<comment><USER34> The assumption is that they are attempting to get ahead of any potential criticism by regulators regarding it being unclear that Facebook owns these brands. It's probably not a consumer-driven decision.

<comment><USER35> Right but I think the issue would then be that if more people became aware FB owns all these brands, there might be an even larger voter push to get them to be broken up, whereas right now people don't know and this care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why? To make people distrust these apps even more?

<comment><USER37> Oops, thanks for the followup corrections.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm glad.

I'm tired of dragging my friends around various messaging platforms, but it needs to happen. This will help.</comment>


Ask HN: I have 1 year before starting to work at Microsoft. What should I learn? - <AUTHOR>

I'm from Brazil, almost getting my CS degree. Microsoft has offered me a job as a Software Development Engineer. Because of visa bureacracies, my start date is 1 year from now. So, HN, what kind of skills should I brush up? <comment><USER2> It's a very legitimate question since most of the H1-B applicants go through a similar waiting period in between the job offer and start working. However, in my humble opinion this question would have had a longer lifetime and better answers if you had posted in Quora.

I am in a similar situation with a joining date in next October. I decided to finish reading the books I never had time for reading, work on a few community projects and spend more time with my family. I hope it won't get too boring.

</comment><comment><USER3> Congrats !

Do you know the job description ? On what subject will you work ? I would suggest to be fluent in C#, C++ and the .NET framwork. Btw: How did MS make you an offer ? You applied or they came for you ?

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends on what you're going to do... General stuff like 'Writing secure code' and 'introduction to algorithms' are useful to read.

</comment><comment><USER5> Become fluent in C# at least. Get experience with the CLR. Learn about unit testing. Watch Tudors to learn about court intrigue.

</comment><comment><USER6> Go</comment>


10 Tips For Creating Website Mockups In Photoshop - <AUTHOR> http://blog.plasticmind.com/design/creating-mockups-in-photoshop/

<comment><USER2> I don't think there's anything wrong with the "hybrid" approach. Obviously, some things take a lot longer to do in CSS/XHTML, so Photoshop is the best tool to use when brainstorming or comping for a client. But at some point it can become counterproductive trying to replicate all browser behavior in Photoshop, so I just "run with it" and deal with the detail in CSS/XHTML.

</comment><comment><USER3> 0\. Do not mock up webpages in Photoshop.

<comment><USER4> I disagree. Because of my background as a programmer, it never even occurred to me to mock up websites using Photoshop when I started--it was 100% CSS+HTML, all the time. But, a few times I was designing something and had to to show a colleague a draft in a hurry, so I did a screenshot of the incomplete page, pasted into MS Paint, and embellished it there. When they made suggestions, I just went back into MS paint and re-arranged things again in a few seconds and resent. It was amazingly productive compared to writing all the code. And, I didn't even have layers--it was MS Paint!

After a few experiences like that, I switched to a hybrid, iterative approach where I would mock stuff a few aspects of the page in a real image editor and then code it when I found the correct look. It really saves a lot of time when I am doing anything that requires non-trivial CSS and HTML.

It saves time because I end up throwing away the majority of my designs after I see them--they look better in my head than they do on the screen. If I just did it in HTML+CSS then I'd waste more time just doing the coding and I've have less time to experiment with different looks.

The thing to keep in mind is that it isn't necessary to spend hours and hours getting everything (e.g. font anti-aliasing, color shades, spacing) pixel- perfect in Photoshop. You just need to get it good enough where you can tell that the design is going to work. Then you can code it up as a HTML+CSS mockup. No matter what you do, the Photoshop mock-up and the final version aren't going to look the same anyway (especially when you consider browser differences).

<comment><USER3> Photoshop completely obscures the base reality of the medium of hypertext -- the document -- and directs all the focus onto surface concerns. I find that if you start by building pages like it's 1994 (but with div+span & class+id), and thinking about how to logically structure your document, the CSS can slowly fall into place iteratively.

Photoshop has all sorts of clever tools for pixel-perfection, and it's very easy to go overboard. The biggest problem is the easy delusion that the mockup _is_ the object being designed, and the subsequent divorce from reality.

That's why I believe that if you're going to do anything outside a text- editor/browser/inspector, it should be in an unreal medium: dry-erase, crayons, cut-out construction paper, post-its, watercolors, _FINGERPAINTS!_

<comment><USER5> If you are capable of mocking something up in HTML+CSS, you should be able to know what to avoid in photoshop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use Photoshop as my thinking tool. Designers think too, not just programmers. Designers don't just make things look pretty.</comment>


The Web Development Discipline - <AUTHOR> http://isolani.co.uk/blog/standards/TheWebDevelopmentDiscipline <comment><USER2> This isn't about "web development discipline," it is a rant about how people should support IE6 cheerfully, with the idea that it is normatively incorrect not to support it.

Whether or not to support IE6 is reasonably a business decision based on your audience and resources for implementing. That balance shifts over time (note that we are not having this discussion about IE3, 4 or 5 any more).

If you need to support IE6 then yes, support it from the beginning. If you don't need to, then don't.

There is a valid role for advocacy and social pressure here, it is not writ from God that "thou shalt support IE6 even if it be costly with little benefit."

</comment><comment><USER3> I think the biggest understanding of what this blog post is saying comes when the developer finally says "fuck it, IE will just have square corners."

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally speaking, I don't target IE6 for the same reason i don't target IE1,2,3,4 or 5: I don't have the capability or resources to do it.

I guess that must make me a bad web developer then!

<comment><USER5> Obviously this doesn't make you a _bad_ web developer, as such, but I'd question your rationalisation here.

What capability and resources do you need that you haven't already adopted for cross browser support elsewhere?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's less the fact that the development process is undisciplined, and more the fact that it is just a bore to recode something beautiful for people who couldn't care less about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> The point of the article is that if you're "recoding something" then you're not approaching cross-browser development in the right way. Dismissing IE users as "people who couldn't care less" and writing off proper cross-browser support because "it is just a bore" really doesn't (or shouldn't) have a place in professional web development.

I have worked as Head of Development at a 3-person agency, as a Senior Developer and Front-End Architect at Yahoo! and now as Web Architect at a medium-sized company. On all the sites I've worked on (with their varied budgets and development team sizes), dropping support for IE6 would have been putting our desires as developers ahead of those of the users who are still using that browser. In the end, supporting IE6 actually wasn't that hard; you just have to control what "support" means.

Yahoo!'s Graded Browser Support gets this right. Though it no longer explicitly categorises the browsers it lists into A- and C-Grade, those grades still exist. Rather than Yahoo! prescribing which browsers should get the full experience and which should get a core experience, they leave it up to you:

> _The GBS focuses on specifying which browsers need a verified usable > experience based on factors such as market share and influence. Defining > what is "usable" and specifiying acceptable levels of degradation are left > for teams to decide._

From <http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2011/07/12/gbs-update/>

That's not to say the GBS is perfect. Using global browser market share may make sense for an international behemoth like Yahoo!, but you really should make your own decisions based on the browsers your users are actually using. Make sure you're looking at unique visitors rather than page hits though, because if a user comes to your homepage and sees an obviously broken layout they're not likely to hang around very long.

In short, supporting IE6 is actually easy if you can justify giving those users just a core experience (minus bells and whistles) and have a development team that knows what they're doing.

<comment><USER6> I guess I misunderstood the point of your article. Sure, if your IE6 user base is large enough, you pretty much have no way to get around providing support for that browser. And I agree it is easier to test IE6 compatibility procedurally, after each coded page or measurable milestone, rather than at the very end of the website's development.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not my article, though I did submit it to HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This position is even worse than the junior developer's, I hate developers with a 'You're doing it wrong because even I know how to do it' attitude. This guy's an accessibility developer , it's his job to know this shit.

First, he's delusional if you think you can learn Html, Css or Javascript in an afternoon. HTTP? Good luck reading through and _understanding_ <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html> in an afternoon.

I'd happily wager money that of a cross section of people who are employed as 'web developers' only a small percentage would know what a http response even looks like.

But the real killer is that he may work for companies who can increase their profits sufficiently by supporting IE6 that they can pay for all the extra mental effort involved in supporting IE6, but I don't.

I'm not doing it wrong by writing sites that aren't IE6 compatible. I'm deliberately deciding their business isn't worth the extra engineering or testing cost.

In the end Html5 is coming and people are starting to stop supporting IE6. We're already beginning to see the trickle of 'we don't support IE6' of major sites before the flood hits.

It's not poor engineering, it's just the future. I felt sorry for the junior web dev, he should have checked, but this guy's attitude is worse imo.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm not doing it wrong by writing sites that aren't IE6 compatible. I'm > deliberately deciding their business isn't worth the extra engineering or > testing cost.

That was the whole point of the article. Don't drop IE6 support because all the cool kids say you should, or because yourfavouritewebsite.com has; actually look at your browser stats and other metrics and make an informed decision.

From the second paragraph in the article:

> _The browser support of your website must be directly correlated with your > target audience._

Browser support should be based on research and business realities, not developer whim.</comment></comment>


How Does Your Pay Stack Up? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/graphics/how-does-your-pay-stack-up/ <comment><USER2> Behind a paywall for me</comment>


The outrageous new metric for online attention - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2014/09/29/chartbeat-attention-web-metric/

<comment><USER2> It's interesting to think that changing the way the value of a viewer is measured will change the way content is composed. It's even more interesting to think about how you might actually measure attention with the available inputs in different platforms. Mobile obviously offers the richest set of sensors for determining whether someone is looking at what you hope they are looking at.</comment>


U.S. finalising rules to limit sensitive tech exports to China, others - <AUTHOR> https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-tech-china-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-finalising-rules-to-limit-sensitive-tech-exports-to-china-others-idUKKBN1YL1BI <comment><USER2> I'm not sure what the point of this is if there aren't limits on Chinese investment into startups/VC and limiting Chinese researchers in the U.S. who can bring the learnings gained in the U.S. right back to China.</comment>


Atheists at risk of dying out due to belief in contraception, study claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/atheists-dying-out-contraception-claims-study-a7626846.html <comment><USER2> At least within the developed world, secularism is very much on the rise. And that's true even in the US.

[http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing- religio...](http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious- landscape/)

Between 2007 and 2014, the portion of the population that is unaffiliated with any religion soared from 16.1% to 22.8%. The portion of the population identifying as Christian dropped from 78.4% to 70.6%.

</comment><comment><USER3> If a similar study would claim "Christians at risk of dying out -- Muslims are having more babies" I doubt it would have made it in mainstream papers.</comment>


Google Chrome Is Killing Your Laptop Battery - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2014/07/14/googles-chrome-web-browser-is-killing-your-laptop-battery/ <comment><USER2> Interesting, but I am not impressed with the reviewers criticisms of Firefox and IE. Firefox solved its memory management issues in version 27. [https://areweslimyet.com/](https://areweslimyet.com/) IE doesn't have the plugin ecosystem that others do, but it has all the essentials unless you have specialized needs and built-in support for filters and block lists. It also has by far the best touchscreen interface of any desktop browser.

Bottom line: web browsers move fast, and complaining about problems with old versions is pointless.

</comment><comment><USER3> funny, when I have a mac and run Chrome exclusively, this thing is the biggest power drain I run (besides Outlook 2011....)

<comment><USER4> It's likely the biggest power drain because of processor consumption because many people spend a lot of time on a laptop on the internet.

Further, if you read the article, you'd know that this problem does not affect macs.</comment></comment>


VMware to acquire Wavefront - <AUTHOR> https://www.wavefront.com/ceos-letter-to-customers-users-partners-and-friends/ <comment><USER2> How big a deal is this for VMWare? Seems like they were largely headed this direction anyway?</comment>


How the Boring Company plans to disrupt tunnelling - <AUTHOR> http://boringcompany.com/faq <comment><USER2> If they did manage to hit 125 mph and if the tunnels were built over long enough distances, couldn't these be a competitor to travelling by air for shorter trips i.e. 1-2 hour flight times? You can go a long way at 125 mph in the time that's not directly used in getting you to your destination i.e. travel to airport, security, etc. etc.</comment>


The Dark Side Wins: Lucasfilm Shuts Down Star Wars Fan Movie Marathon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/13501215021/dark-side-wins-lucasfilm-shuts-down-star-wars-fan-movie-marathon.shtml

<comment><USER2> Not only am I not a lawyer but I'm also not in the States, so I don't know. But haven't there been cases where someone has failed to defend their rights (copyrights, patents, whatever) and thereby been ruled to have _lost_ those rights?

Perhaps Lucasfilm simply, by default, defends their rights to avoid the gamble in the courts of losing them.</comment>


Dead Pixels and Solar Flares - <AUTHOR> http://firqby.tumblr.com/post/111543800089/lit-pixel-solar-flares-and-other-causes <comment><USER2> Man, those picture breaks are like hammer strikes to the face and all I'm trying to do is read this guy's post.

<comment><USER3> Open your dev console (f12) and paste this:

      for (var i = document.images.length; i-->0;)
      document.images[i].parentNode.removeChild(document.images[i]);

That will strip out all the images on the page.

I use it as a bookmarklet for when I browse with CSS disabled, since images often ruin/break what I'm trying to read once I do that. :)

<comment><USER2> Hah! Great minds... :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SPIE.5487.1425D](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SPIE.5487.1425D)

</comment><comment><USER5> High energy from lightning, solar flares and - - - other electronics like valve amplifiers can cause any number of issues for camera sensors and processors. Here's a photo from an amplifier shoot I did awhile back. A lot of the photos came out like this or were so corrupt I couldn't do anything with them, adding another dimension to glitch photography.

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/patcheudor/9169366813/in/photo...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/patcheudor/9169366813/in/photolist- eYgpig-eYsMRd)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've seen what seems like gamma ray problems on CRTs on older planes that have been flying a long time. Not quite dead columns but more like streaks from top down (part way and at angles).

</comment><comment><USER6> Another content free blog post.</comment>


How I stayed motivated taking MOOCs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.michaelrbock.com/post/75878434315/nm3204-e-learning-personal-intro-follow-up-moocs

<comment><USER2> Udacity is my favorite because like Instagram or YouTube or the iPad-sepcfic apps, contents needs to be produced specifically for each medium. You cant take an mobile app and stretch to a tablet, you cant take a textbook and just make a PDF and you cant take a university lecture and just put it online. Udacity gets that</comment>


Can the planet afford the exorbitant power demands of machine learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/16/can-planet-afford-exorbitant-power-demands-of-machine-learning <comment><USER2> To me the article is missing the point between training a model and running a model.</comment>


Google Releases A Nuke. Apple Won't Win This Fight. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/google-releases-a-nuke-apple-wont-win-this-fight/ <comment><USER2> _We're offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards that screenshot to us. No questions asked._

Anyone left on HN who still wants to stand up for Arrington's reputation as a journalist?

<comment><USER3> There are few reporters who wouldn't accept leaked documents. Some of the most famous news stories were based on leaks.

<comment><USER2> There are hopefully considerably fewer offering explicit quid pro quos for said documents.

<comment><USER4> I will see the shirt offer and raise him one shirt. Any Google employee who forwards me confidential and highly important legal documents, and thus risking immediate firing if not a lawsuit of their own, will get not one, but _two_ t-shirts! All the way from Italy!

Sheez...

<comment><USER5> Free startup idea: T-shirt funding pool for leaked documents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, I'm a little confused about the root issue here. Can anyone explain what's so special about Google Voice compared to Skype? It seems that Apple has approved an app with a similar functionality in Skype for the iPhone. Is there something extra special about Google Voice that I'm not seeing? If the two apps are functionally identical maybe Apple is hung up on some aspect of the implementation. The whole "Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone" sounds like it could be more of a technical issue vs a functionality / religion issue. (Religion being Thou shall not make phone calls without glorious At&T)

<comment><USER7> There's no relevant difference between GV and the plethora VOIP & dialer apps out there. At least none that would be explained away with a straight face by the "core functionality" argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would have appreciated a more descriptive title instead of the tabloid style one. Apologies if that seems fussy.

</comment><comment><USER9> Really? Contradicting something another company has said is "A Nuke"?

A nuke would be Google search blocking iPhones.

<comment><USER10> A nuke would be critical mass of U235 dropped on Apple headquarters:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone have a copy of any bona-fide Apple App Store rejection notice?

It's possible both sides are playing semantic games. A "we can't include this app at this time without tweaks" could be seen as a 'rejection' or merely a 'request for info/changes' depending on your perspective. I wouldn't put it past Apple to have carefully worded all 'rejections' and 'approvals' so that there is always wiggle room in both directions.

<comment><USER12> False. The iTunes Connect interface displays a red stoplight and a "Rejected" indication when an app has been rejected. Can't be clearer than that. Now whether or not they showed this image to Google I haven't the foggiest idea, but that's the way it's always happened to me. Behold: [http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202...](http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202009-09-18%20at%209.37.09%20PM.png)

As for e-mail rejection notices, they can be a little weasley. Here's the operative sentence in a rejection I got from Apple:

> We've reviewed [app name] and determined that we cannot post this version of > your iPhone application to the App Store because [reason].

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the details!

Though, I can see Apple's wiggle-room still. The image talks about rejecting a 'binary'. The boilerplate text, rejecting a 'version'.

So picturing myself seated on Apple's (self-interested, self-serving) mental furniture, they may interpret things as: "We've rejected a version, and rejected a binary, but the _app_ itself is still (and perpetually!) eligible for further consideration."

<comment><USER12> Now we're playing semantics. The problem with redefining "rejecting an app" is that the phrase already has a perfectly good meaning: "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste." Rejecting doesn't (have to) imply permanence; I rejected non-Newtonian physics for much of my life, but I do so no longer. If showing a red stoplight, the word "Rejected", and Phil Schiller calling you to say the app's not in the store doesn't mean the app was rejected than the phrase has no meaning. (Again, don't have any insider knowledge here; just inferring what happened based on my experience with app rejections).

Further, even playing by Apple's own semantics (which I take strong issue with), there's clearly an "Application status" called "Rejected". So even if they were to suddenly become nihilists and apps are never rejected, that's not consistent with what the iTunes Connect interface actually says, which (IANAL) I presume is legally actionable with respect to what constitutes an official Apple communication.

<comment><USER13> Law is just playing semantics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Am I missing something, or are screenshots impossible to fake now? I make fake screens all the time for fun.

</comment><comment><USER15> Apple could easily reject Google voice app with their "thy program shalt not containeth an interpretereth" loophole in the iPhone SDK agreement section 3.3.2... they've done this with at least one app that I'm aware of ([http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full- commodore-64-emulator...](http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full- commodore-64-emulator-rejected-from-app-store/) and <http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/important_update>).

How many programs nowadays of the complexity of Google voice don't use some kind of internal state machine interpreter or domain-specific-language to simplify the programming model?

So they could use that loophole in a negative way to hinder competition whenever they choose to do so, not saying they "would" but they certainly "could".

<comment><USER16> Except they "didn't". They've already listed their reasons (<http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/>) and to my knowledge have never used the interpreter rule in anything remotely resembling the way you describe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Screenshots are evidence because you'd really have to be lame to spend the effort on a perfect forgery?

Is it that they do feel shame and won't falsely claim forgery on top of what they're already caught at?

</comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone even care? Even if there was Google Voice on the iPhone, would you use it?

Having said that, the TC headline may as well be right. This is one nuke that Apple is going to find hard to swallow.</comment>


Authoritarians Distract Rather Than Debate - <AUTHOR> https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/authoritarians-distract-rather-debate.html <comment><USER2> So I guess CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, etc are authoritarians with their constant need to talk about Stormy Daniels and similarly asinine storylines in a coordinated attempt to tar and feather Trump with any and every distraction possible?</comment>


Show HN: Synatic – A back end and integration platform for enterprises - <AUTHOR> https://www.synatic.com <comment><AUTHOR> I'm Martin Naude, founder of Synatic ([https://synatic.com](https://synatic.com) ). Synatic is a backend and integration platform for enterprises, bridging old and new technologies to help business build faster.

I've been building backend processing solutions for corporates for many years, and always ended up building a bespoke processing and integration system for each project. Some things I've repeatedly built are:

* Importing and exporting files from legacy systems (eg. from IBM iSeries in financial institutions, older timesheet systems for large factories and mines), * Running lookups and calculations against datastreams (for payroll, loyalty programmes, transaction fee calculations etc) * Transferring/transforming and aggregating data between various ERP, CRM and other business systems.

I wanted a way to accelerate the project time by using a common platform, so businesses can move faster to the solution, and not worry about the data logistics, infrastructure and production level non-functional requirements. We've built Synatic to solve these common and frequent problems.

One of our biggest features compared to other platforms is extensive debugging, logging and tracing functionalities (catch a glimpse of that on our homepage video) You can also create API's to your workflows or datasources, making Synatic a tool for quickly putting together backends. Another differentiator to existing platforms is our extensive support for legacy systems - the type found in older corporates.

Our platform is focused on helping corporates leverage modern software through API integration faster, while still having the flexibility of running on- premise (in Docker containers), on your chosen cloud providers, or as a fully hosted service. Most of our clients are financial enterprises with a large mix of technology acquired over years of operation.

Our clients have used Synatic to solve enterprise problems such as providing real time access to legacy data, consolidating data from franchises and branches, creating single customer views, and data automation between disparate systems.

We provide strong onboarding and solution support throughout all rollout stages, as well as ongoing operational support.

We'd love developers, managers, BI and operations professionals to try Synatic, and hear of your experience in building enterprise data processing, integration and operations solutions. You can signup for a full trial of Synatic for a few weeks at [https://synatic.com](https://synatic.com) . Thanks and looking forward to your feedback and comments!</comment>


SS-Lisp — run Lisp in your browser (IDE + compiler + VM) - <AUTHOR> http://mihai.bazon.net/blog/ss-lisp-run-lisp-in-your-browser

<comment><USER2> Ymacs (the editor he is using) is really impressive, but it really needs a license:

<https://github.com/mishoo/ymacs/>

*Edit: Nevermind, the license is at the top of every file instead of a LICENSE file. Glad to see it's BSD.

Also, I'm disappointed that he doesn't show any actual benchmarks and the skeptical side of me thinks that it would be too slow for production development. Still, very impressive, I've been wondering recently if it would be possible to get a VM fast enough for the web, and this looks like a good starting point.

EDIT: I'm also really surprised that he didn't show a whole lot of debugging workflows in the screencast, since you could easily do things like stepping with a VM.

<comment><USER3> Speed is acceptable in Chrome, but the gap between V8 and other JS engines is stellar. :-\ So I'm afraid it won't be too useful for production use.

There's no debugger yet. It would be fairly easy to step through VM instructions, but to step through source code expressions looks quite complicated. First thing I'd like to do is to have a stack frame inspector.

What's unfortunate is that even the smallest new feature can have a quite dramatic impact on speed...

<comment><USER2> If you track the expressions when compiling, you could embed them somewhere with information about which bytecode they refer to, and all you have to do when stepping is lookup the source expression. This kind of thing does tend to touch every part of the compiler though.

I work for Mozilla, but not specifically for Firefox, but I am interested to hear which parts were much slower for Firefox. If you have any jsperf or other test cases as examples, I'd love to see them and I can report back to the Firefox guys about it.

This looks extremely impressive though, I'm glad I don't have do all this work now to see how well a VM can perform!

EDIT: I was viewing your examples in Firefox, and they seem to perform rather well. Not incredibly speedy, but they seem close to the speed shown in the video.

<comment><USER3> Well, I didn't benchmark specific parts of it, but here's a quick test (that's actually one of my favorite benchmarks now):

The program: (you can run it in the REPL; use C-S-y to paste from OS clipboard):

SS-USER> (defun sum (n) (let rec ((n n) (r 0)) (if (zerop n) r (rec (1- n) (+ r n)))))

SS-USER> (time (sum 100000))

The time spent will be displayed in the _ss-output_ buffer.

Firefox: 6516ms Chrome: 138ms

Parsecs away... :-(

However:

(time (without-interrupts (sum 100000)))

Firefox: 376ms Chrome: 135ms

Still a lot worse than Chrome, but quite a big difference.

without-interrupts ensures that its body runs continuously. Normally we run 200 instructions of each thread, until we get to 50ms, then reschedule for later with setTimeout(0). So that's probably the reason why Chrome seems to do much better—maybe setTimeout is very expensive on FF.

<comment><USER2> Thanks. I'm not sure about setTimeout, I can't imagine it's slow, but it might be something with context switching.

There's probably things you could do in the VM to optimize performance for Firefox. If you developed the VM in Chrome, typically people optimize for it Chrome. I can usually get relatively close performance if I tweak a few things here and there for both Firefox and Chrome.

Although, I think Firefox's main performance comes from JIT-ing, which you've totally lost if your running in a VM. The above example is a loop, which would usually perform great, but you've lost the JIT. That may be a reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> See also the screencast[1] linked in the article, it shows that the compiler and VM are rather good given the fluidity of the demo, and it's also a good demo of the experience of Lisp REPL-driven programming.

[1] <http://vimeo.com/42070553>

</comment><comment><USER4> Something which was always in my mind, thanks. Ymacs seems to be interesting too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Cool as a geek demo, but I prefer my native tools.</comment>