Have you spoken with your lonely friend today? - <AUTHOR>

It seems like a day does not go by that i do not hear about some other wandering soul who decides to leave this crazy party on earth due to depression. It is a long battle, and one i am currently fighting, but in my experience our Waterloo Moments can often be avoided by the timely appearance of a willing listener and/or friend.
Suicide is a personal choice, and one for which others should not feel responsible, though who does not feel a twinge of missed opportunity when someone dear leaves us because of the place they are trapped in their minds? I know i am a stranger, but if you need to talk to someone, or just sit silently on the phone, or anything... I am here friend.
I leave you with a book recommendation, An Unquiet Mind by Kay Redfield Jamison, and a quote from Hugo Wolf:
"To be sure, I appear at times merry and in good heart, talk, too, before others quite reasonably, and it looks as if I felt, too, God knows how well within my skin. Yet the soul maintains its deathly sleep and the heart bleeds from a thousand wounds." <comment><USER2> `Suicide is a personal choice`

I hear this all the time, and I could not disagree more. As someone who has been "there" more than once, suicide is not a personal choice.

And I'd also like to extend the same offer. I've been blessed to have someone else on HN do this for me and contribute to my recovery. If there's someone you need to lend an ear and listen, or speak with you, I'm here.

<comment><AUTHOR> I stated that because it is, regardless of its net effect. I do not condone it, nor is it an excuse to do nothing. But the battle against suicide must be fought, ultimately, in the hearts and minds of those who are likely to succumb to it. I did not mean to be callous or ignorant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Suicide is a personal choice

This is a naive understanding of suicide. It is the choice of someone who thinks there is no other reasonable alternative. People who are suicidal need help identifying other strategies for dealing with their depression, and they need help choosing those other strategies.

There are many people who have contemplated or attempted suicide at some point, and then got the help they needed. Sometimes they seek this help out on their own; sometimes others push them to get help. Many of these people then go on to live entirely productive and satisfying lives.

If you know someone who is suicidal, by all means talk to someone who knows how to handle the situation. Don't be afraid to ask someone if they are contemplating suicide; you won't be "planting" the idea for anyone.

<comment><AUTHOR> As stated above, i meant no offense. I do believe, that like drug addiction, one can have support and knowledge and experience, but the battle is won or lost in the mind of the actor.

The real issue here is my own struggle between the ideals of personal freedom and my heart breaking over the brothers and sisters i lose every day. I reserve the right to check out whenever i want, but it must be on my terms and in my control. I personally believe that being an untreated manic/depressive is tantamount to lack of control. Ditto for young people who are trapped by a fabricated environment. If a cancer victim wants to top, who am i to say no? I realize these are extreme thoughts, and i am sorry if my phrasing is crass.

<comment><USER4> I attempted suicide at age 17 and although I am not prone to depression, I live with a lot of stress and a serious medical condition. Those two facts often leave me suicidal in spite of not being prone to depression.

Encouraging people to "talk to their lonely friend" is encouraging them to act out of pity. That is not the antidote. Think of the phrase "pity fuck" or even "charity case." The antidote is to help people become valued members of society and help them learn to get their emotional and other needs met. This is best done from a position of strength, not a plea for "please pay attention to me so I don't kill myself" or similar.

I have value. I know things of value. One of the reasons I struggle with being suicidal is that I have been marginalized and cannot get most people to take me seriously. I am working on that -- on my credibility and on how to get people to understand that, no, I am not a charity case (in spite of being homeless and deeply in debt). I am someone who has something of value to offer.

I wrote some piece of crap yesterday and then redacted it in part because I felt it came across beggarly, which is not my intent. I have something of value to say. But I am struggling with the how to effectively communicate it. I need help with how bridge the communication gap. I don't need pity. I have gotten charity. Charity helps you survive from one day to the next. It does not help you become established as a professional. It does not improve your reputation and improve your positioning so you can better take care of yourself.

I tend to care deeply about everyone I meet (an Achilles heel, which annoys me to no end). I don't do "pity fuck" emotional stuff. People who realize I am unusually accepting and nonjudgmental often are drawn to me because they think I will "love" them when they feel unlovable. But they are essentially asking me to love them _because_ they are unlovable. That is a doomed proposition. People who will love you _because_ you are broken are sick. They need to be needed. Those so-called friendships don't last. When you stop being pathetic, they end because you no longer need a crutch and the other person can't relate to you as a better person than the hurt little puppy who followed them home.

I hope that makes some sense. We do this by building a better world, where we generally treat people better. We don't do it by promoting pity. We do it by promoting compassion, patience and tolerance for everyone, in all walks of life.

Though I have been crapped on enough I am currently running rather short on those things myself at the moment. So perhaps my theory is wrong. Perhaps it really is a dog eat dog world and perhaps that is as good as it can get.

Peace. And ((HUGS)) if you want them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Holy shit; so many great points. First off, you are quite adept at explaining yourself, via text anyways, so your effort is paying off.

I agree completely in regards to Pity. It is worse than hatred in my opinion. More insidious, crippling, and degrading, but that is my opinion.

My message was not out of pity, nor does it encourage it. It was a little reminder to make an extra effort to talk to people you know want to be talked to but are for whatever reason having a hard time expressing that desire. There have been so many posts about the first part of deepening our social awareness of the lost and lonely. I want to push further.

So i will do this from time to time. Take it as pity, call me weak, i care not. I am here because someone took the time to talk when i was not able to but desperately in need of it.

I do not hug, but i will firmly place my hand on your shoulder and look deeply into your eyes.

<comment><USER4> My concern is that other people will interpret it as encouraging them to take pity on others. A little reframing would likely serve your goal a bit better.

But we all do what makes sense to us. And I am certainly not the boss of you, just hoping to help you up your game, if I can.

Take care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Human connections are complex and it seems we are losing the skills necessary to interact with one another in other situations than a specific set. Maybe it's also related to aging but I get the feeling that calling someone to grab some beers it's a lot less common now than interacting via facebook.

The book "Feeling Good"[0] by Dr. David Burns might help you with your depression.

[0] [http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood- Therapy/dp/03808...](http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood- Therapy/dp/0380810336)

<comment><AUTHOR> In this regard, i feel we must be the change we want to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> (((hugs)))

This isn't really the way to do it. I wish it were, but it's not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Then how? and where? this community is in no way the only one to suffer from self harm, but i view Devs, Admins, and Hackers like Tolkien's Noldor: super powerful, long lasting, but relatively thin on the ground and susceptible to Morgoth's machinations... yeah, the metaphor kind of broke down...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> ...i will not take this silence as reenforcement of my depression...</comment>


Ask HN: What desk chair do you use? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Ikea JARVFJALLET It costs a bit (180€) but it is great</comment>


MH370 Didn't Just Disappear, It Was Caught in a Swamp of Corruption - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/mh370-didnt-just-disappear-it-was-caught-in-a-swamp-of-corruption?ref=home <comment><USER2> Maybe the manufacturers should be required to operate a fund to search for lost aircraft. It is in their interest to find out if it was technical failure. Even pilot failure would be in their interest as it my point to bad UI, procedures or training that needs to be changed.</comment>


Thriving in the Age of Collapse - <AUTHOR> http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dtxqwqr_19gjjvp8 <comment><USER2> anyone have sparknotes for this? Quite the long read :-)</comment>


Show HN: Gridifier – Dynamic grid layouts for real-time apps - <AUTHOR> http://gridifier.io <comment><USER2> > You can use Gridifier for free under the non-commercial license. Non- > commercial license is valid only if you are creating non-profit and personal > projects. In such cases Gridifier license is GPLv3.

This is not how GPL works. By providing it as GPLv3, you've permitted people to redistribute it as they like under the GPLv3, including to themselves (and anyone else they feel like) for commercial purposes, as long as they themselves follow GPLv3's requirements.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Huh, TIL. Out of curiosity, is there a license that would allow them to be FOSS only for non-commercial use, but having customers pay for commercial use, like they want?

<comment><USER3> Can someone please point to some credible source with a clear explanation how of how you're supposed to license F/OSS for profit?

I can't figure it out.

<comment><USER2> Support and additional services.

For example, WordPress.com does pretty well, despite the codebase being GPLed. Same for RedHat - they're quite successful despite all their packages being available via CentOS, because of paid support subscriptions, certifications, etc.

<comment><USER3> But what about companies like highcharts?

Just answered my own question: [http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html](http://shop.highsoft.com/highcharts.html)

<comment><USER2> Yep. Creative Commons isn't FOSS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can someone point at examples of real time apps where this will be useful?

</comment><comment><USER5> This is pretty cool. Thank you!

</comment><comment><USER6> Looks nice, but I use React. Anyone know of something comparable for React?

<comment><USER7> This library seems to provide most of the functionality: [https://github.com/STRML/react-grid-layout](https://github.com/STRML/react- grid-layout)

<comment><USER8> Except the author hang had a stable release in months. Apparently is working on a rewrite but is doing so privately despite several offering support.</comment></comment></comment>


Detroit in ruins: the photographs of Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/02/detroit-ruins-marchand-meffre-photographs-ohagan

<comment><USER2> I own the book _The Ruins of Detroit_ to which this article refers, and live in the greater Metro Detroit area.

Lot's of photos in the book look posed. An american flag, clean and shiny in the middle of an old dusty scenery, or a basketball lonely in a gymnasium with full air pressure after some decades. However, it's an impressive piece of work, and it could be, that it just hurts me looking at these kind of photos.

In documentaries like _Detroit - between Utopia and Perdition_ they go into more detail to what happend and still takes place in the Metro Detroit region. ( www.lavafilm.de/en/p_detroit.html ) It was aired in france and germany, so I don't have a youtube link available. European countries analyse the phenomena Detroit in great detail to understand what happend.

</comment><comment><USER3> Detroit in 1942: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2179089505/>

</comment><comment><USER4> I wish they had some new "detroit in ruins" photos. Most of these have been floating around the Internet for the past 6+ months.</comment>


Ruby 3x3: Matz, Koichi, and Tenderlove on the Future of Ruby Performance - <AUTHOR> https://blog.heroku.com/ruby-3-by-3/ <comment><USER2> Half of the Ruby that I write is not web applications - it's scripts that configure servers, import and export data, optimise a manual process, etc. Ruby is perfectly performant in those scenarios.

It's become a horrible meme I can run a script that reformats a 30 line CSV file the way I want it in 0.05s and someone will almost certainly lean over and say "Ruby is too slow, you really need to upgrade to <x>". Or the intranet application I wrote in Sinatra last year for a total of four users, where all I got questions about how it could be usable without "asynchronous".

That said, I don't understand Ruby's performance position. IBM released a preview of their JIT implementation over a year ago, with much fanfare. By many accounts, it held major practical improvements. Since then, I haven't heard a thing about it, and the Ruby team seem to be spending years talking about implementing the same thing.

<comment><USER3> ruby is really good for solving small problems quickly. Don't get me wrong, proficiency in your shell will go a long way. But when something starts to get complicated I can bang it out in ruby and it's just done.

Web apps do drive ruby's adoption, though. Now that I know ruby I use it for many things, but I learned it initially for rails. Many other languages (like python) can fulfill ruby's scripting usages (I would argue javascript can't - despite its many strengths it's just a little too awkward)

<comment><USER4> Matches my use case completely. I haven't built a rails app but learned ruby with a view of doing that but never did (I believe it's important to know the language before the framework - in hindsight, a good decision with Rails specifically).

I like the standard library and I love the gems that fill the gaps the stdlib shouldn't really fill.

Many devs I know reach for the language they use day to day and their scripts and productivity suffer. Ruby is almost like an openly secret weapon in that sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Too little, too late.

Disclaimer: I'm a Ruby developer.

Making Ruby 3 times faster is not going to save it. It's just way, way behind the raw performance of other programming languages. Also, with the arrival of new, modern programming languages, there isn't that many productivity reasons anymore to justify the poor performance and lack of sane concurrency.

I love Ruby, the programming language, but I kind of start seeing that others haven't been idle and there are some growing ecosystems that can soon leave Ruby behind. It kind of feels like Perl back in the day: it was still a good programming language when it started losing ground.

We, Rubyists, have seen a lot of talented people leave both the Ruby and Rails core teams. You see them go to other, younger communities, making them bloom. In the meantime, the Ruby ecosystem seems stale and lacking fresh ideas.

The other problem is that there is not a single company that will throw as much money as it takes to improve the language, as happens with JavaScript, Python or PHP.

I am not trying to say that Ruby or Rails are a thing of the past and shouldn't be used. They are still great tools and put in the right hands can give your company / project huge productivity and more-than-acceptable performance. But there is a time for everything, and I think that the golden years of Ruby are gone.

<comment><USER6> Is your experience mostly web dev? Because not all areas of software are so mercurial.

> Making Ruby 3 times faster is not going to save it. It's just way, way > behind the raw performance of other programming languages.

Like Python? Ruby is comparable in performance.

> Also, with the arrival of new, modern programming languages, there isn't > that many productivity reasons anymore to justify the poor performance and > lack of sane concurrency.

There is no other language that makes it as easy to write a DSL. And there are plenty of places to look for concurrency in Ruby, built right into the language. ruby-concurrency provides even more abstractions.

> The other problem is that there is not a single company that will throw as > much money as it takes to improve the language, as happens with JavaScript, > Python or PHP.

Isn't that company Salesforce/Heroku?

> I am not trying to say that Ruby or Rails are a thing of the past and > shouldn't be used. They are still great tools and put in the right hands can > give your company / project huge productivity and more-than-acceptable > performance. But there is a time for everything, and I think that the golden > years of Ruby are gone.

I disagree. There are plenty of projects written in Ruby that are still going strong. The language is just maturing and web dev is not the only thing people do with it anymore.

<comment><USER7> > Like Python? Ruby is comparable in performance.

Only on a cursory glance... python has pypy, cython, greenlets, twisted, numpy/pandas/scipy, and dozens of game engines of varying quality. You can write high quality, high performance python code that fits right in with the rest of the community.

Ruby performance is a joke. It doesn't even ship with a useful memory or performance profiler, hence New Relic's existence. You're correct, it's a great DSL language, and performance shouldn't matter at that level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The decision to avoid LLVM (for JIT) due to its lack of age/maturity strikes me as extremely odd. I can't think of a piece of technology that has as much universality, buy-in, functionality, and compatibility.

<comment><USER9> LLVM is too big and not good enough.

The only viable options are dynasm, a simple selfmade jit as in potion/tinyrb or rpython. perl6 went with dynasm.

rujit looked good to me, but the tracing overhead was too much. They should really analyze why it was so big, even as tracing jit.

And the datastructures need to be slimmed down, as in potion/tinyrb or php7 or lua/lisps. Only tagging schemes lead to performance. This has nothing to do with the jit. size matters.

<comment><USER10> This is a really nice read by RuJIT's creator - Masahiro Ide (his Doctoral Thesis [0]).

[0] - [http://kamome.lib.ynu.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10131/9368/1/id...](http://kamome.lib.ynu.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10131/9368/1/ide_masahiro- thesis.pdf)

P.S. this is available via google results, I'm assuming it's public domain

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For those who want ruby-like syntax and native performance, there is crystal: [https://crystal-lang.org/](https://crystal-lang.org/)

<comment><USER12> Ruby isn't about the syntax, though. Ruby is about the metaprogramming and what the language allows you to do.

Crystal is neat, but it isn't interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I could be reading the tone of the interview wrong, but it seems like there's a weird sort of anti-intellectualism bent to the Ruby community.

In the middle, there's this exchange:

      Jonan: So you would just use pointers to point to those immutable objects?
      Koichi: Yes. Also, I want to note that immutable doesn't mean frozen object.
      Frozen objects can contain mutable objects. So I mean those immutable objects which only contain children
      that point to immutable objects.
      Jonan: So if we had a nested hash, some large data structure, we would need to
      freeze every object in that in order to reference it this way. Is there a facility in Ruby right now to do that?
      I think I would have to iterate over that structure freezing objects manually today.
      Matz: Not yet.
      Jonan: So there might be?
      Matz: We need to provide something to freeze these objects.
      Aaron: A deep freeze.
      Matz: Yes, deep freeze.
      Jonan: Deep Freeze is the name of this feature maybe? I think that would be an excellent name for it.

So yes, they all agree that Ruby's current 'frozen' feature doesn't grant real immutability guarantees.

But then at the end...

      Jonan: OK. So then, a friend asked me when I described guilds, he writes a lot of Haskell,
      he asked me when we are we going to have "real immutable objects", and I don't quite know what he means.
      Is there some distinction between an immutable object in Ruby and an
      immutable object in a different language that's important?
      Matz: For example in Haskell, everything is immutable, it's that kind of language, everything is immutable from day one.
      Jonan: Yes.
      Matz: But in Ruby we have mutable objects, so under that kind of situation we need a whole new construct.
      Aaron: Frozen objects should really be immutable. It's really immutable.
      Jonan: OK.
      Aaron: I don't...
      Jonan: You don't know what this person who air-quoted me "real immutable" was saying?
      Aaron: Yeah I don't know why they would say "real immutable".
      Jonan: Should I unfriend him on Facebook? I think I'm going to after this.
      Matz: At least tell him if you want "real immutable" go ahead and use Haskell.
      Jonan: I think that's an excellent option, yeah.
      Aaron: You just to need to say to them quit "Haskelling" me.
      Jonan: I should, I'll just tell them to quit "Haskelling" me about immutable objects.

I get that they are joking a bit, but do they really not understand that the Haskeller is referring to the lack of deeply immutable objects? The hostility seems a bit weird to me, given that languages like Haskell push forward our understanding of the usefulness of things like immutability, which then get absorbed into other languages (like Ruby, clearly).

<comment><USER14> I do think this is the culture of Ruby, appealing to some and not to others.

Ruby is a practical language by design and it's common to see good-natured poking fun at academic concepts that sound good in theory, but fall apart on corner cases (and real projects are full of corner cases).

Case in point: [https://twitter.com/dhh/status/216238003817938944](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/216238003817938944)

People looking for conceptual purity should look elsewhere.

<comment><USER15> Please don't look elsewhere for conceptual purity. Ruby is absolutely ideal for exploring any concept that can be expressed in object oriented programming, and even many that are expressed in algebra.

Ruby has been designed fundamentally as an Alan Kay style object oriented programming language. In that light in my opinion it is more suitable for conceptual purity than most other scripting languages.

DHH's criticism of SRP has to do with legitimate drawbacks. I think all of us have experienced the over-engineering SRP can invoke when applied naievely. Also note that DHH's framework Rails has made significant steps in enabling SRP for modern Rails applications, so this is not a flat out rejection of the idea.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure Ruby is ideal for exploring OO concepts, as fine a language as it is. Missing, for example, are: inheritance of class attributes/methods, constraints on overriding methods (e.g. declaring as abstract or un- overridable/final), dynamic attributes.

Thankfully it's a very flexible and forgiving language, so there are third- party libraries (e.g. Hashie, ActiveSupport's Concern) to accomplish these kinds of things, but the core language doesn't offer them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> TLDR: There isn't an actual plan to make Ruby 3x faster, it's just a bullshit number Matz made up to be cute. Instead there will be some marginal improvements here and there, as per usual.

Some vague references to the idea of building a JIT are discussed. Rubinius already does this, but they apparently long ago decided that Rubinius doesn't exist, so I guess that's off the table.

<comment><USER17> You must be fun at parties.

<comment><USER16> You better believe it.

I was at the Rubyconf in Denver sitting behind Matz, and watched him fiddle with his computer and tweet instead of paying attention to Brian Ford's well- informed talk on the deep structural problems within the Ruby development community, which included their indifference to concurrency issues [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BagNfTbXn3w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BagNfTbXn3w)

I then went one of the talks at the same conference on improving Ruby concurrency for IO that was largely unattended because it was scheduled to run at the same time as an Aaron Patterson talk on literally making sausage.

It's clear to me through observation that the Ruby core devs don't take this topic seriously. And while current performance isn't presently a huge problem for my work, it's clear to me that a lot of people are walking away as a consequence of this.

I'm sorry if bringing this up makes me uncool at your parties or whatever, but if we're going to have a real conversation about this, let's have that instead of just singing kumbaya around a dumpster fire. Matz is out there selling people on the idea that there's going to be a 3x performance increase when there obviously isn't going to be one.

And FWIW, I had drinks with Brian, the other concurrency speaker, and I do recall getting tacos and singing some karaoke with Tony Arcieri. You'll have to ask them if I'm good for parties or not.

<comment><USER18> A typical answer to this would be to ask about your contributions to the issue. I don't mean to allege responsibility, but a strong investment would explain your frustration and choice of language much better.

>[talk on concurrency] that was largely unattended because it was scheduled to run at the same time as an Aaron Patterson talk on literally making sausage

I literally laughed. Such is the live of compiler architects, I guess, they are far and few between.

<comment><USER16> I absolutely made contributions to this issue when I had the chance [http://www.slideshare.net/KyleDrake/hybrid-concurrency- patte...](http://www.slideshare.net/KyleDrake/hybrid-concurrency-patterns)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We keep seeing discussion like this and yet we haven't seen much improvement. They used to joke about only those company making money are Rails. So why haven't Github, Shopify, Twitch, Groupon or others pour any resources in ?

Ruby is slow, at least from a Web Development perspective, Rails is VERY slow. So both together combined makes things a little bit bad.

Look at the boring stack from StackExchnage

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790650)

[https://twitter.com/Nick_Craver/status/790527231600787456](https://twitter.com/Nick_Craver/status/790527231600787456)

Any Rails Shop would be happy if they could hit 3x those numbers even with caching.

<comment><USER20> > So why haven't Github, Shopify, Twitch, Groupon or others pour any resources > in ?

GitHub does; Tenderlove works on Ruby there!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am not sure it doesn't make sense for them to just move over to JRuby and have them all focus their efforts their.

<comment><USER22> At Discourse our biggest constraint we are fighting now is memory, not performance (don't get me wrong, I wish MRI was faster). JRuby is usually more memory hungry than MRI and getting reasonable boot time is not easy on JRuby.

Additionally we don't even boot on JRuby today, I wish we did but it is hard to justify effort here.

<comment><USER10> Did this help in any way? [https://tunemygc.com](https://tunemygc.com)

Just by playing around with  RUBY_GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR you can reduce memory consumption quite a bit.

<comment><USER22> I did hand tune stuff

[https://github.com/discourse/discourse_docker/blob/master/te...](https://github.com/discourse/discourse_docker/blob/master/templates/web.template.yml#L8-L12)

RUBY_GC_HEAP_GROWTH_MAX_SLOTS is critical without it you get way too much bloat. The default is very problematic I discussed this with ko1 but not sure if we can get a better default in for 2.4.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I see no reason to not just move to Elixir at this point for 10-20x performance increase and the tools to build distributed systems at your fingertips.

<comment><USER24> Because if you put a framework as complete as Rails on Elixir it would probably only be marginally faster anyway.

People always seem to compare extremely simple microservices to Rails apps and exclaim how much faster it is in comparison.

<comment><USER23> I've been wrong on here before but I've never just invented stuff without facts...

[https://github.com/mroth/phoenix- showdown/blob/master/README...](https://github.com/mroth/phoenix- showdown/blob/master/README.md)</comment></comment></comment>


PA Report: We're not citizens anymore just criminals who have yet to be jailed  - <AUTHOR> http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/i-am-justin-carter-were-not-citizens-anymore-just-criminals-who-have-yet-to

<comment><USER2> Combine unpopular expression with overzealous DAs wanting to get ahead in their careers, and you get this situation. I'm convinced that the entire culture and method of promotion in _all_ departments of justice need to change if we want to see real reform. More convictions does not equal a better DA</comment>


Wuhan lab was researching bat coronavirus unrelated to nCov - <AUTHOR> https://news.yahoo.com/wuhan-lab-director-says-facility-150715317.html <comment><AUTHOR> The virus under research had only a 79.8 % match to ncov</comment>


The COVID-19 coronavirus and its economic impact - <AUTHOR> https://www.capitaleconomics.com/the-economic-effects-of-the-coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> With 50% of the population of China under quarantine, I'm starting to wonder how the government is avoiding massive levels of starvation and power outages.

<comment><AUTHOR> So far here in in Guangdong all of the supermarkets and wet markets that are open are fully stocked with fresh produce like eggs, meat, tofu and vegetables. Factory-produced stuff like instant noodles seems to be going through waves of reduced availability, but there still aren't any bare shelves.

The only thing that is completely sold out - and has been for weeks - is the facemasks that are mandatory to wear outside (go figure).

It seems that the agricultural supply chain at least is still working. Farmers are harvesting and drivers are delivering.

I am also worried about the power, though. Our building had a power outage on Friday morning last week which lasted 4 hours. That's especially inconvenient when so many people are essentially stuck in their apartments trying to work from home.

<comment><USER3> I'm not surprised. Farmers live and farm in rural areas. Rural places aren't on lockdown.

Even Wuhan still has food.

But there are still plenty of people starving: disabled people who's entire support network died or are in ICU. There is no-one to bring them food and they cannot get it themselves so they die of starvation. There are volunteers trying to go around but they cannot get to everyone in such a large city.

Also since the hospitals are focusing on coronavirus, people with other diseases or conditions are at the back of the queue and are having treatment or delivery of drugs delayed.</comment></comment></comment>


Sean Parker leaves Founders Fund - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2014/03/sean-parker-leaves-founders-fund-not-part-of-latest-1bn-fund/

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I don't know how to automatically create a link that will bypass the paywall.

Text below:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

Hold the Sean Parker jokes about $1bn.

It was Justin Timberlake, playing Mr Parker in The Social Network, who delivered the famous line: "A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool?"

Founders Fund has just raised its first $1bn fund – but Mr Parker has now officially cut his ties with the firm.

News of the new fund came late on Wednesday, in a deliberately low-key statement. But it's hard to be too low-key about $1bn – or about the departure of an investor who attracts as much attention as Mr Parker.

It was while he was working as president at Facebook that Mr Parker introduced Mark Zuckerberg to Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel, leading to the first outside investment in the company. It also led to Mr Parker and Mr Thiel working together at Founders Fund in a partnership that immediately put the firm in the Silicon Valley spotlight.

The most prominent – and successful – company Mr Parker has been associated with since then is Spotify, which attracted investments both from him and from the fund, and where he remains a director. But another social networking idea fell flat: Airtime, launched with a glitzy, celebrity-packed party in 2011, flopped almost immediately.

A spokesperson for Founders Fund tells us that Parker "has been winding down his involvement with Founders Fund over the last several years", and adds: "He remains a friend and advisor to several members of the team, but he'll no longer be investing on behalf of the firm."

Another person close to the firm says that Mr Parker hasn't been actively involved for several years. He told the FT himself two and a half years ago that he had "reduced his duties" at the firm to give him more time to devote to Airtime.

However, as of Wednesday evening, Mr Parker's Facebook page still lists him as "executive general partner" at Founders Fund.

He was also still listed on the firm's website as recently as Sunday, where he was described as part of the firm and "an entrepreneur with a record of launching genre-defining companies that reinvent ways to spread information online." The last time it raised a fund, a little more than two years ago, he was listed as a part of "the team", though he was not included among the partners.

As the FT's Tim Bradshaw reported, Mr Parker has been spending much less time in the Silicon Valley recently. Since his controversial wedding among the California redwoods, he has been based mainly in New York, away from what he calls the Silicon Valley "monoculture". This is what he had to say late last year:

        Silicon Valley feels totally in the clouds. There is something so all-consuming about the tech world in San Francisco and it's inescapable . . .

It looks like he has just taken one more step towards escaping.

<comment><USER2> Easy enough to just Google the article once you find it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's annoying. I edited my comment to reproduce the text.

<comment><USER2> It is, but I'll still take it over having to pay every time. :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Predictions on Nokia's new platform strategy: new OS for the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/27/predictions-on-nokias-new-platform-strategy-new-os-for-the-us/ <comment><USER2> The problem with these predictions is that they presume that Nokia is in some sense rational. If they'd said "5: Current R&D employees to be replaced by a single shaved moose with a caffeine addiction," then that might come close to approximating Nokia's historical behaviour.

That being said, this _is_ Elop's first real chance to show what direction he's pushing in, and how much influence he's actually able to wield.</comment>


Hong Kong Police shamed into retreat by everyday citizens - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/cyau4z/meanwhile_in_shatin_citizens_response_to_the/ <comment><USER2> The original Hong Kong police have their own children and family members among the demonstrators and have a difficult time being physically tough, particularly on the young HK demonstrators. Some as young as 10 have been arrested.

It's therefore purported that many of the HK Police are actually mainland military police who have been brought in to get tough. The uniformed don't wear identifying badges. Some of them will dress as demonstrators and mingle with them. The demonstrators can identify these infiltrators by their non-HK accent and by the fact that they don't know the Hong Kong public transit system. Their purpose is to identify demonstration leaders and disrupt plans. The CPP military police apparently don't care about spraying un-involved families with pepper spray or firing projectiles into the heads of demonstrators. You likely heard about one nurse, who was helping wounded demonstrators, losing an eye to a projectile fired by police at point-blank range. The infiltrators are also purported to be the instigators of fires and other of the more violent demonstrator actions in order to justify police acting and using clubs, rubber bullets and pepper spray, as well as arrest anyone they can grab.

This is all another shame. The pre-CCP Hong Kong police were among those of the highest integrity globally. Now, they are comprised of unscrupulous foreign agents whose objective is submission and suppression, and who are now, at least in this episode, ridiculed into retreat.

</comment><comment><USER3> Police is never "shamed" into retreat. It takes decisions on tactical grounds, something that protestors, usually more emotional, fail to grasp.

A retreat usually means that they have the crowd where they want it.

<comment><USER4> Police are humans too. They have emotions, and consciences, and, yes, a sense of shame.

For some of them, these are weaker than their obedience to superiors and/or adherence to fascist principles. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Comments like yours dehumanize the police. They make them into a faceless Other that cannot be truly understood or engaged with by any means save violence. Worse, they do the same thing that the dehumanization of Nazis has done in the US: they sow the feeling that it could never happen to us. That these are monsters, not people. That they're somehow fundamentally different from Real Humans.

The idea that no one has ever (or has recently) joined the police force because of a real belief in justice and a desire to help people is just as dangerous as the idea that every police officer is a fascist pig who wants nothing more than to put their boot on the face of humanity forever.

The problems our country, and more broadly, our civilization has with the police in this age _can_ be solved, and they can be solved without resorting to massive violence, but in order to do so, we cannot rely on the same kind of black-and-white thinking the worst of them use. We have to see them as people, and find the ways to reach their humanity.

<comment><USER3> Of course they are human! But a police force works on a hierarchy and a procedure code, not on the emotions of its members. That's a core point and is actually crucial in a democracy: police do not act on their emotions.

And riot police especially learns to stay as cold-headed as possible and to give tactical considerations over any other.

That gives the police an image of a cold-faced monster but I think protestors insulting the police instead of winning them over totally miss the point. And that "shaming of policemen" is just ridicule.

Recently in France there was some outrage in the media as there were report that after a wave of suicide in the police some protestors chanted "Police, kill yourself". Other protestors then took the counter and one of the popular slogans was "Policemen, don't kill yourselves. Join us.". Police joining protestors is the best possible victory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Direct action is a very important part of democracy.

<comment><USER6> I just wonder if this tactic will work against an army from the outside?

I mean the HK police are part of the people. I bet the troops would be from non Cantonese speaking provinces. I'm not sure they'd be "shamed". One can hope that if it came to it the generals and colonels would show empathy, but the foot soldier is conflicted. The brass should be the ones laying down their pins, stripes, badges and stars.

A foot soldier (infantryman) is indoctrinated, but the brass are educated and should understand all the implications down the road.

<comment><USER7> Once the PLA comes in, they will most likely follow the playbook from Beijing in 1989. Use troops from distant provinces that are already unsympathetic towards the protestors (an attitude China is heavily encouraging in the mainland population already via state media) and overwhelm the protestors with lethal force.

The CCP is for some reason waiting to see whether they will have to resort to these measures. Probably due to anticipated blowback from the international community and the risk of economic damage to HK itself. But once the army does get involved, it's all over.

<comment><USER8> How prepared are mainland PLA forces for urban insurgency tactics? Lethal force is likely the spark that ignites the powder keg.

<comment><USER6> They wouldn't have to. They could lay siege. It's a port. It's mountainous. It doesn't produce much of its own food. They could blockade it.

That said, if they bring in the PLA, it's over. They are conscripts. One hope is the generals would insubordinate.

<comment><USER9> A siege buys time for international sanctions to be felt at home. If they go all in with the violence that would inflame the situation and possibly unite Hong Kong against them. It's really, really, really hard to rule over millions of people who don't want you there. There's fine line they have to walk between inflaming the situation and acting too slowly.

<comment><USER7> Guess what, they did it in Beijing and it worked out for them. This isn't a fucking democracy we're talking about.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is this the correct next step in life? - <AUTHOR>

I'm currently a senior biology major at a State school on the east coast.  Lately I've been unsure of the next couple of moves to make, and seeing how this community is the most intelligent I know, I would like to gain some input.  I get decent grades (3.2 gpa) and I like my classes however I have not found that one niche I really love.  I have also began glassblowing, which is off topic but at the same time is a growing industry. Ive been considering moving to California for a few years.  There, I would hone in on my glass skills (many more artists on the west coast I can learn from) and hopefully begin to pay off my student loans (over 120k in debt, and glass pieces can take 1-15 hours to make and range from $60-2000), save some money by growing my own medicine legally (I spend about 100/week at least on it), and also getting a job wherever I can in my field working a minimum of 30 hours a week.  Also I would be prepared to wait tables or anything else if I needed to. I was thinking of doing this and experimenting in a few different fields of biology until I found the subject I really loved.  My question is does this sound like a feasible path? Or would I be better off working 2 jobs back here on the east coast trying to pay off my loans. <comment><USER2> Personally, I think you are better off going to California. Judging by you considering moving there for a few years now, you want to go there, and from what I can see, there is no reason for you not to. Yes, it will take longer to pay off your loans, but I think the quality of life increase per dollar lost is well worth it considering you. A) Wouldn't be working two jobs. B) You would be able to go to California like you have wanted to for a while. C) You would be able to improve your glass skills, art and creativity are important whatever field you go into because you will need a creative outlet.</comment>


Same-Site Cookies by Default - <AUTHOR> https://textslashplain.com/2019/09/30/same-site-cookies-by-default/ <comment><USER2> Sigh. This is going to break a lot of sites—especially the less than clearly documented behavior of SameSite=Lax with iframe content. If I understand it correctly, iframe'd content, even from the same domain as the parent frame, won't receive any cookies set to SameSite=Lax or Strict.

Does anyone no the rational for this on non-cross domain frames?

<comment><USER3> For same domain requests even with iframe the cookies are sent. I'm more worried about the fact that it may break cross domain authentication, though most authentication frameworks support passing state through the authentication mechanism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This will be great, I tried whitelisting 3rd party cookies for a couple of months but it was unsustainable, this is a good step forward.

<comment><USER5> What did you have to whitelist? I've had third party cookies disabled for a few weeks and it seems to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> ...

> So the Chrome folks plan to change that.

> In Chrome 80 and later, cookies will default to SameSite=Lax. This means > that cookies will automatically be sent only in a first party context unless > they opt-out by explicitly setting a directive of None:

        Set-Cookie: ACookieAvailableCrossSite; SameSite=None; secure; httponly

> This change is small in size, and huge in scope. It has huge implications > for any site that expects its cookies to be used in a cross-origin context.

...

> The Chrome team has set an ambitious timeline which calls for turning this > feature on-by-default for Chrome 80, slated for stable release on February > 4th, 2020.</comment>


Rocketredis – A Beautiful Redis GUI - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/diego3g/rocketredis <comment><USER4> The screenshot doesn't seem very descriptive or illustrative of what the tool does.

<comment><USER5> Agreed - the screenshot was basically a black rectangle.

Is this some sort of joke that I guess I don't get?

<comment><USER6> I'm confused by the number of contributors and stars for what seems like, from the README, a project that is 10% of the way to an MVP, if that.

<comment><USER7> Maybe the same with some other projects of "programming influencers". The owner has 12k followers on Github, maybe even more on other networks. Those people can post a single announcement that they will do something new, and get like 1k stars for nothing, as well as a hand full of contributors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a GitHub project of boilerplate with no releases. Perhaps hitting the submit on this was a bit premature. Let's not judge it until it's ready to be judged.

</comment><comment><USER9> electron boilerplates get you k stars on github now - quite rich - <USER2> dependencies, 379 vulnerabilities, 5GB idle memory consumption and 3GB source code size included for - wait for it - a black window - <USER3>

<comment><USER10> Beautiful!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Only this to reach the top of HN page?</comment>


Evolution tells us we might be the only intelligent life in the universe - <AUTHOR> http://theconversation.com/evolution-tells-us-we-might-be-the-only-intelligent-life-in-the-universe-124706 <comment><USER2> I had never heard of theconversation.com before. Their tag-line is 'academic rigor, journalistic flair', this article is anything but.

The author argues that the current state of intelligent evolution is convergent and thus a series of unlikely events. Supporting it with selectively picking studies that support the life only evolved once theory. Even the Wikipedia article on Convergent Evolution has multiple references to papers that state the opposite.

Even if we assume that life only evolved once, and that all organisms came from one single ancestor it does not remotely support the very weak premise that our evolution is a series of very improbable events. And the jump to state that we could be the only intelligent life in the universe is just hot garbage.</comment>


A better way to convert dog years to human years, scientists say - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/here-s-better-way-convert-dog-years-human-years-scientists-say <comment><AUTHOR> Summary: The new formula, which applies to dogs older than one, says that a canine's human age roughly equals 16 ln(dog age) + 31. (That's the natural logarithm of the dog's real age, multiplied by 16, with 31 added to the total.)</comment>


DuckDuckGo will be included as a built-in search option in Safari - <AUTHOR> https://duck.co/blog/safari

<comment><USER2> Previous discussion (2 days ago): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7836748](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7836748)

</comment><comment><USER3> What was missing in the WWDC announcements when the Spotlight improvements were discussed was web search. Apple will probably want to acquire DDG and cut itself off of Google completely adding it's own web search to Spotlight and Siri.

<comment><USER4> DDG is a little ways from being a full Google replacement. Apple can ill afford the backlash they saw with maps happen again. Remember your simply shifting the notion of anonymity and data from one large company (Google) to another large one (Apple). All device makers gather your data and will use it (if they aren't already) hopefully for the benefit of the users. Instilling fear isn't the solution, clarifying the use and usefulness of data is.

<comment><USER5> Apple hasn't proven itself to be a dick. We trust them implicitly because they have reliably proven that they have our interests at heart, and we pay them to be trustworthy.

Google has proven to be a dick. We distrust them implicitly because they have reliably proven that when faced with a choice between the interests of their nonpaying users and their paid-up clients, they invariably work in the interests of money.

We all still view Apple with some degree of suspicion because they're in the USA and thus NSA happens.

What I'd prefer to see in addition to iCloud is either nationally-hosted iCloud for non-US countries, or self-hosted iCloud services for people who want to be in control of their own security.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Developers Should Run for Congress - <AUTHOR> http://infovegan.com/2010/07/19/why-developers-should-run-for-congress

<comment><USER2> From the article: "developers are certainly better public communicators than lawyers are."

Really? Paul Graham certainly is, but I'm willing to bet that the average programmer is _not_ as good a communicator as the average lawyer. At least not to "normal" (non techie) people.

By the way, this article brings up something I've been wondering for a while: who impacts the world more, technologists or politicians? At the edge cases, I think (but am not sure) that it's the technologists (Bill Gates has certainly had quite an impact, I'm guessing more than most Presidents, even). I'm wondering about the average cases of, say, successful entrepreneurs versus elected officials.

<comment><AUTHOR> Try reading a piece of legislation vs a piece of technical documentation and see who the better communicator is.

<comment><USER2> Yes, but consider that legislation is like a piece of code going into a legacy system that's been around for over 200 years, and is supposed to be as accurate as computer code in what it means. It is _not_ an easy system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> In my experience, most good devs have no head for politics. The kind of thinking needed to thrive in politics is very different from that needed to write good code.

The best politicians combine a cold blooded ruthlessness and extreme ambition with some idealism. The worst don't have the idealism, or are actively evil. Most good politicians are extroverts who love meeting people and are very good at organizational wheeling and dealing and power plays.

Most devs are the opposite of all that, and the few who do have some political skills end up as CEOs and such. By and large, developers can't even handle office politics. Legislative politics is to office politics as a knife fight in a dark alley is to a pillow fight.

<comment><USER4> Well, in legislative politics, at least the politics are the point and to be expected. Having served in a low-level elected role at one point, I vastly preferred that politics to office politics, which seem to be a way of equalizing the playing field for people who don't actually have skills.

<comment><AUTHOR> My old boss said something wise I reflect on often: "Clay, you're just not political enough to work in a company. You should try politics."

2 years later I was lead programmer of the Dean campaign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Never. It would be like working for a big company, but more so.

<comment><USER6> Think of all the amazing campaign slogans you could have though:

* "PG - He's for me!"

* "Paul Graham - He's the man!" [sic]

* "No more DC slackers, we want YC hackers!"

* "Paul Graham: Invest in America"

* "PG: Bringing the 'start' back to Capitol Hill!"

Related note: I'm available for campaign management jobs. :)

<comment><USER7> "Garbage collect Congress!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I did actually run for Congress a few years ago ([http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/10/scott_chacon_fo...](http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2005/10/scott_chacon_fo.html)), so I can tell you as a developer and having been a political candidate, that being a developer is much, much easier.

I'm a relatively outgoing person for being a software developer - I do a lot of public speaking and so forth, but putting yourself up as a political candidate is incredibly stressful. You have to be an expert in everything - tech issues, yes, but also farm issues, banking issues, environmental issues, taxes, poverty, unemployment, zoning, etc. It involves walking door to door and telling people face to face that they should trust you and give you their vote and hopefully money and time. You have to ask people for money - all the time. You are asking for a job representing everyone around you, so it's hard to relax - you feel like you're slacking when you should be asking for votes or money or studying the issues.

It's also helpful to be very, very partisan. If you're moderate, the people that volunteer for causes like yours will seem extreme for you and saying that people on the other side are not horrible people can lose you volunteers. You have to juggle that. If you think office politics or developer cliques are bad or distasteful, wait until you see what the political circles are like. Everyone has an opinion (including people like us) and knows how everything should be run. When you don't do what they suggest, they might leave.

I love the idea - obviously I invested a lot of my time in it. I think technology can seriously improve our governance for the better and having tech aware legislators would be a good thing. However, before you do it, know what you're getting into. People think politicians are corrupt and stupid, but in general I think they're mostly smart, hard working and want to honestly help. Running for office is complex, stressful and trying. Before you throw your hat into the ring, contact someone you like, volunteer your time, help them understand these issues, build them these tools and convince them they are worth it. You might be surprised how approachable many of them are. Then, if you still feel the need to replace them, go for it. And let me know, I'd love to hear about it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Conspiracy:

A 2nd-tier nation wants to become a major power in the middle to late 21st century. The real oligarchical powers that be in that nation bring about the following:

        - substantive emphasis on education
        - sane Intellectual Property laws
        - entrepreneur-friendly tax laws somewhere on their territory
        - lots of developer/tech-savvy legislators

The last point is the crucial one going forward. The first 3 points are the advantageous policies one can foresee now. The developer/tech-savvy legislators will know the right thing to do in the unforeseeable future.

<comment><USER10> Ah, I am reminded of an old syllogism (stolen and modified from Cvltvre Made Stupid, one of my favourite books growing up):

1\. Society should be run by the most qualified people

2\. I am a tech-savvy software developer

3\. Therefore, society should be run by tech-savvy software developers.

<comment><USER9> Shoving words into my mouth? I am not saying this nation should be entirely run by the tech-savvy. I'm saying that there should be representation for that sort of expertise amongst its legislators.

If the doctors of country X noted that there was a disturbing misunderstanding of medical issues in the legislature, I don't think they'd be unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a few representatives with medical degrees would help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Electing PG would be cool beyond words but I say "God, no!"

If he goes over there he will most likely be incapacitated by politics and most of his time will be taken by useless committee meetings, etc. I think he is doing _much_ more good as in his position right now. It wouldn't be too much to say, I think, that he (with his excellent colleagues, of course) singlehandedly changed how people thought about early stage tech funding and incubators.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't vote because I think the way the system is set up with the Democrat and Republican parties being the only legitimate candidates is corrupt, the federal government greatly exceeds its legal and moral authority, and I don't want to appear to grant any legitimacy or my blessing to this farce of a process. I don't feel beholden to it, nor do I wish to control it. My personal feelings are that I'll support the few legitimate, non-bureaucratic, non- corrupt aspects of the system while the rest of the system can get tossed.

But I might rethink that if Paul Graham somehow got on a ticket. America needs engineers and honest businesspeople running the show instead of lawyers and activists.

<comment><USER6> You want non-lawyers drafting laws? There's a good reason why most congress people are lawyers. The law is very tricky and English is an ambiguous language that needs to be made crystal clear from a legal standpoint (which typically becomes unreadable to laypeople).

That said, I do think there's a place for engineers that happen to be interested in law and passionate about government. I would appreciate it if maybe 10% of congress were former engineers/scientists/developers.

Also, not voting is what corrupt politicians want you to do. Vote for a candidate you do support, even if you know they won't win.

<comment><USER13> "Corrupt politicians" is a tautology. I don't vote because I don't consent to mob rule, and I refuse to participate in forcing my preferences on other people using the violence of the state.

<comment><USER14> That's why we don't have 'mob rule', i.e. Democracy in the USA. Instead we have a constitutional republic.

<comment><USER13> I find it interesting that people leap to correct/redefine the usage of a word so that they can ignore the meaning of a statement.

<comment><USER14> No, that is the crux of his statement. Complaining about a situation as it doesn't exist, is akin to a straw man.

<comment><USER13> I didn't know that the term was considered a synonym 'democracy', and was using it in a more general sense. The main link between the two seems to be usage along the lines of the Jefferson quote. Saying that a democracy is a type of mob rule doesn't make it the only type of mob rule.

Whether the mob is every citizen or just the citizens that wear majority- approved costumes doesn't change the meaning I was trying to convey.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm pretty sure most developers would get really frustrated with the aribtrary, corrupt, stacked system almost immediately and just quit. It's like getting a program in VBA or something; you don't even try to support it, just hook up something sane immediately.</comment>


If the Angry Could Hear What the Calm Do Not Say (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/11/if_you_could_he.html <comment><USER2> Wise words for our time.</comment>


The statistical likelihood of Steph Curry's ridiculous shooting streak - <AUTHOR> https://www.authorea.com/27167

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, author here, my statistics abilities are far from perfect so I'd welcome any feedback. I have a feeling there is a much easier way to get to the full answer than the statistical hoops I jumped through.</comment>


Looking for a cofounder level role? Join me; I've already got the ball rolling - <AUTHOR>

TL,DR: Longtime reader, throwaway account. Started e-commerce company solo a while ago and planning to join an accelerator soon. Looking to ante-up by adding 1-2 people (ops/marketing and possibly tech) on mutual trial basis to start. I'm generalist (design business & some tech).
MORE: I recently established an art-focused e-commerce startup, centered on redefining discoverability with a twist and direct sales of unique goods from indie designers. Planning to join an accelerator soon and would love to have a team in order to grow and capitalize on the program's resources and connections.
Rather than speed dating and swiftly declaring love until death do us part, I figured an extended dating trial of a few months might be more practical. Compensation could be structured as stipend paid during the accelerator period followed by negotiated equity (on vesting schedule) if both parties agree to continue working together. Possibility for full salary when the startup gets funding (or reaches applicable sales milestone first).
I'm open to partners from anywhere, as long as you can relocate to North America to participate in accelerator and possibly stay afterwards. Contact me if interested: artystartup [at] google's email service <comment><USER2> Previous discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7430082](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7430082)</comment>


How can I become less self-conscious at work? - <AUTHOR> Recently I've noticed that I'm extremely self-conscious, to the point where I am doubting myself before speaking at meetings or team events. In private, however, I am very confident in my abilities, intellect, value, etc, and it shows in my performance reviews. But for some reason, that confidence isn't translating when working with others. In fact, it seems to be making it worse. I am highly confident when working alone and terribly lacking in confidence when doing anything with more than a few people. Anyone else struggle with this or have any ideas how I can become more relaxed in group settings? <comment><USER2> Please invest some time learning the concept of Mindfulness. Its widely available knowledge base and will help you out in a very short period of time.</comment>


The Competition Myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?bl

<comment><USER2> Krugman doesn't realize that the economic success of America (and other countries) has all depended on producting more output with less labor input - i.e., increasing productivity.

That is what has enabled us to move beyond an economy where 97% of the workers worked on the farm raising food. That's down to something like 2% now. The rest of us can now do other things like make cars, computers, and software.

<comment><USER3> Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman isn't aware of the relationship between America's economic success and productivity increases?

You may disagree with his thesis, but let's not pretend he's a naïve bumpkin when it comes to economics.

<comment><USER2> I based my comment on this Krugman quote:

"Consider: A corporate leader who increases profits by slashing his work force is thought to be successful. Well, that's more or less what has happened in America recently: employment is way down, but profits are hitting new records. Who, exactly, considers this economic success?"

<comment><USER4> Krugman was talking about running the country as a business (America Inc), not productivity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"... what America needs now is corporate tax cuts and across-the-board deregulation ..."_

Did I read this right? Didn't the finance industry [0] and the car industry [1] get bail-outs? The question I want to know is if a large portion of the population don't have enough purchasing power how does business grow in the US?

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008)

[1] [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects...](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/auto_industry/index.html)

<comment><USER6> "The unfavorable interpretation is that ... what America needs now is corporate tax cuts and across-the-board deregulation."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This link goes to the article instead of a registration page: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?par...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

</comment><comment><USER8> Sorry, Professor Krugman, you are more of the problem than the solution.

Let's start with your:

"The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, ..."

Yes it was. Okay. Now, where's the _teaching_? Here are three cases of lack of teaching: (1) At least since 1929, we should have understood how a financial bubble that bursts and makes a large fraction of the banking sector broke can wreck an economy.

(2) In particular, for the housing bubble, we should have had the teaching at least since Clinton's term. Uh, as I understand it, Clinton and Bush 43 both saw the dangers of having Fannie and Freddie guarantee liar, junk, sub-prime mortgages but (A) didn't see anything to do about it that was practical politically and (B) just hoped we would get by somehow anyway. Uh, to be more clear, it was the lack of _teaching_ that made the solution not practical politically.

(3) As the housing bubble was developing, we should have had some real details on what the heck was going on. We didn't. Indeed, we still don't want to talk about the _politically incorrect_ details and want to blame _Wall Street_ instead of the Congressional Black Caucus and Barney Frank and what they told Fannie and Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act, and how some of the _adjustable rate_ loan writers _gamed_ the system. Wall Street and even the bond rating agencies, as bad as they were, were really only the tail of that sick dog.

So, US irresponsible nonsense shot the world economy in the knees. The Asian banking crisis was another example. And 1929 was another example, with severe _consequences_ through 1945 and continuing consequences through the Cold War. Are we learning yet? For the US 1929 bubble, I chalk up about 100 million people killed in WWII; so I'm for more _teaching_. Yes, we've needed a lot of _teaching_ right along.

But for this needed _teaching_ , in the national media and in particular in the NYT and in the Krugman columns there we get nothing significant. We get much more on Lady Gaga than anything at all serious on the economy, and the economy is a very serious subject.

So, Professor, to start we were talking about, uh, what was it now, oh, I remember, _the economy_. Okay, what's that? I mean, can we have a description, please? So, we should get the relevant data and present it usually in graphs and where each graph addresses one or several relevant questions about, say, standard of living, unemployment, government deficits, our _intellectual capital_ (from education, research, and development), foreign trade, GDP, taxes as a fraction of GDP, where the taxes are coming from, government spending as a fraction of GDP, where the spending is going, and these quantities over time with percentage changes. We need to know where the money is and what the flows are. Similarly we need to know a description of US and world economic activity and flows, e.g., in the sense of Leontief. That's for a start in any _teaching_ about the economy. At least such data would give us a basis for discussions about the Federal deficit. Of course, to get early warning about housing bubbles, etc., we need much more detail than that.

So, where is this data? Professor, I see next to nothing in your columns, the NYT, or the US media.

Uh, Professor, since you are a professor of economics, you actually do have the data, don't you? And you have some good analysis of the data? So, for _teaching_ , think you will let us see the data and the analyses too?

Professor, on the US economy, the US is flying blind. The situation is grotesque, outrageously irresponsible, and apparently little better among economists than the _newsies_ and the public.

For one example, let's have a little _reality check_ :

We might consider the campaign, I mean the 2008 campaign for president -- you remember, that, right? So, now the president wants to talk about jobs, the economy, and _competitiveness_ , right?

In the campaign, we remember the interview of Obama by the San Francisco Chronicle on 1/17/2008. The video has been on YouTUBE at two URLs, but both are now dead. Some of the more important audio is now at

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ>

So, here Obama deliberately intends to use carbon taxes to "bankrupt" US coal fired electric generating plants, that is, about half of our electric generating capacity.

Then he wants to replace that capacity with his favorite _100% all-natural, pure, pristine, precious, green, clean, renewable_ energy from whatever and especially from wind turbines and solar cells and associated equipment sold by his good buddy GE CEO Immelt.

And, of course the _reason_ to destroy half of our capacity is to _save the planet from the hideous scourge of global warming caused by CO2 from evil humans_ , oops, not "global warming" but now, may I have the memo, please, "climate change". Right: Now the problem is "climate change" as if we were going to keep the climate from changing. Looks like a permanent job.

Yup, it's a really good _morality play_ : Human _sin_ results in human _transgressions_ against an angry, vengeful god that inflicts _retribution_ from which humans need _redemption_ via sacrifice.

Uh, recall, Padawan learners, that the trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption is an old formula fiction _framework_ with leading examples in Wagner's _Ring_ , Tolkien's _Ring_ , and Lucas's _Star Wars_.

Such a morality play and trilogy are very old flim-flam, fraud, scams inflicted on easily manipulated, fearful, ignorant, superstitious masses and a favorite of various charlatans, witch doctors, religious leaders, etc. for hundreds of years including the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock to _keep the sun moving across the sky_ , _The Music Man_ who wanted to use a "pool table in town" to raise the specter of "sin and corruption" and sell band instruments and uniforms and catch the next train out of town, up to Saint Laureate Al Guru, Immelt, and Obama.

So, raise the cost of electric power at the plant from about 3 cents per KWh to, drawing from experience in Germany and Spain, about 50 cents.

So, shoot the US economy in the gut just to see it bleed. Some contribution to "US competitiveness".

The guy wants to destroy half of our electric generating capacity; that would do us more damage than any foreign enemy has yet accomplished.

Thus endth one reality check.

But our highly self-esteemed professor continued with:

"a much-needed increase in public investment" apparently on "on infrastructure and education".

For "infrastructure", here in NY one of the Obama proposals is a high speed train from Manhattan to Albany. Hmm .... Last time I got a car registration, I had to pay a big surcharge to support the money losing trains from the NYC suburbs into Manhattan. So, those trains don't make money. Amtrak loses money. For getting from Manhattan to Albany, now a good way is via car mostly up the Taconic State Parkway, and I can assure the erudite one that for the last half of the trip there is nearly no traffic. Net, such a train would just lose money. All or nearly all the passenger trains in the US lose money.

Uh, we had passenger trains: E.g., can go to NE Indiana, to Fort Wayne, 30 miles west to Warsaw, 15 miles south to Claypool, a crossroads with two churches, one school, a cemetery, a trailer park, and a few retail stores. And there are railroad tracks and an old train station. At one time, could catch a passenger train there and get to essentially any big city in the US and from the back to nearly any such crossroads in the US. But the Model T Ford did a lot to kill the passenger trains, and by 1960 they were nearly all gone. There's no chance that passenger trains will have success against current cars, roads, and airplanes. Apparently passenger trains are where you and Obama are saying "Yes we can". Sorry: No you can't. In the US, passenger trains lose big money.

Uh, Professor, just what is it about losing money you find so attractive?

For "education", just what is it you would like to teach? The US is awash in educational institutions, and now a big concern is that students should not get loans for such education because the return on investment is too low and much a student's financial strength for life can be ruined trying to pay back the loans. Uh, Professor, in NYS, an electrician's license is a better foundation for a career that will permit buying a house and supporting a family than a Ph.D. in electrical engineering or, for that matter, most Ph.D. degrees.

Or you want students to take out loans to have you teach students economics to help them avoid the pitfalls of the real US economy that you avoided by being a professor of economics supported by student loans, gifts from wealthy alumni, and research grants from the US Federal government from taxes extracted from people who actually do productive work for a living?

No sale.

Net, Professor, I would make two points, both well supported by history:

First, a real economy is important, often gets sick, and then ruins many lives and kills lots of people.

Second, the academic economic profession studies essentially only imaginary economies, there usually using irrelevant mathematics (e.g., the Kuhn-Tucker conditions), and knows next to nothing about any real economy. E.g., you are missing the first step -- good descriptive data.

So, I conclude: Sorry, Professor Krugman, you are more of the problem than the solution.</comment>


"This Is the Part Where Amazon Jumps the Shark" - <AUTHOR> http://jareksteele.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/this-is-the-part-where-amazon-jumps-the-shark-or-go-forth-and-destroy-your-community-sayeth-amazon/

<comment><USER2> The problem is that instead of worrying about price, compete by being different and better. Make a store that people want to be in rather than a store.

Amazon will win on price hands down. If you think only on this dimension, then close up; instead, ask yourself why your customers come to you at all.</comment>


Websocket-based Tethering for iOS devices - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/spoletto/iOS-HTML5-Tethering

<comment><USER2> A while ago I bought this App: [http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/29/itether- app-offers-inter...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/29/itether-app-offers- internet-tethering-on-your-iphone-for-one-time-fee/)

Best $15 I ever spent on an App, because Apple pulled the App shortly thereafter, and I have unlimited data.

It uses the same sort of technology ... having a web browser open on your phone within an App that provides a tunnel. You have to have the App open on your phone and on your Mac/PC.

However, there's one downside: You need to have the App foregrounded on your phone, regardless of method, due to the fact that I believe WebSockets are inactive when backgrounded on iOS.

The App still works on iOS 7.

<comment><USER3> Don't they remove the app and credit you back $15(when you connect to internet or the appastore)?

<comment><USER4> Nope -- I've had that exact app working like a charm across multiple devices and OS updates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very cool. Charging for tethering when you are already charging for data is ridiculous.

Of course many cell providers are now bundling tethering for free...

</comment><comment><USER6> I was confused why one needs this but it is because in some places tethering costs extra dime i guess ?

I dont have that problem, but i only get 750 Megs unmetered traffic in my EUR 50/month contract anyway, so i hardly use tethering.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, from what I understand a lot of providers in America charge extra for tethering (Which is absolutely ridiculous since you're just using data). I'm quite happy with tethering my 1GB for EUR 10/month myself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As with any non-standard tethering solution, make sure you have a firewall somewhere along the way that blocks ports that your phone doesn't normally access. Your provider will detect these outgoing connections and send you a warning/threat.

<comment><USER9> T-Mobile actually does DPI over unencrypted HTTP, and throws up an error in your browser if you're using tethering without paying for it (Galaxy Nexus + Macbook Air + HTTP Everywhere works though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Any reason why this wouldn't work with WebOS devices or other non iOS?

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably not, it seems to only require a websocket capable browser. That said, I haven't tested that.</comment></comment>


Weasel Word Detector - <AUTHOR> http://www.cthreepo.com/writing/weasel-word-detector.shtml <comment><USER2> I found this useful to remind me to use stronger words in my prose.</comment>


Global Priorities Bigger Than Climate Change - <AUTHOR> https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities <comment><USER2> huh. Argues that we should address problems where we can do a lot of good with relatively little investment. As an economist, he seems to be proud to take a rational approach, but on the other hand, he is taking a view based merely on financial rewards ("bad projects — basically, projects where if you invest a dollar, you get less than a dollar back").

So let's assume money invested in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment can bring more savings than fixing climate change (which is very expensive). How does it follow from this that a focus on HIV/AIDS would be more important? After all, climate change is an existential problem that may endanger the survival of our civilization.

<comment><AUTHOR> "may endanger"

Not a convincing argument. All the countries with nuclear weapons or more of a danger. The effects of climate change are slow, and people can adapt.</comment></comment>


Apple, Google Asked to Pay Up as Operators Face Data Flood - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/apple-google-asked-to-pay-up-as-europeean-operators-inundated-by-data.html

<comment><USER2> "Google Inc., Apple Inc., and Facebook Inc. need to pitch in to help pay for the billions of dollars of network investments needed for their bandwidth- hogging services, European phone operators say." -- How about no.

If some telco operators don't want to pay to upgrade their systems, I'm sure there'll be other telco operators would upgrade to entice customers to switch over. Especially in Europe where mobile phone networks are all cross compatible.</comment>