Objective C, Cocoa, And Iphone Programming Books For Beginners - <AUTHOR> http://cocoadevblog.com/objective-c-cocoa-iphone-programming-books

<comment><USER2> I learned Obj-C/Cocoa using some of the books mentioned, plus a few others. My opinions for them are below. In general to get into Mac/iOS development:

        1) Learn C
        2) Learn Objective-C
        3) Learn Cocoa (Mac) or Cocoa Touch (iOS) - both APIs are similar

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-- C Books: \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Learn C on the Mac, by Dave Mark

        - Very newbie-orientated
        - Hand-holds you through lots of stuff
        - HIGHLY recommended for beginners
        - Written specifically for Mac users (using Xcode 3.x)
        - Won't make you an "expert" in C, but gives you the basics
        - Code examples all available online

        Bottom Line: Recommended

Programming in C (3rd ed), by Stephen G. Kochan

        - Well written
        - on-par with "Learn C on the Mac" regarding beginner status
        - Not platform specific (you should know Xcode, TextMate)
        - Code examples don't generally jump chapter-to-chapter

        Bottom Line: Recommended

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-- Objective-C Books: \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Programming in Objective-C 2.0 (3rd ed), by Stephen G. Kochan

        - I haven't fully read this book, but use it as reference
        - Seems to be a great continuation from Mr. Kochan's C book (above)
        - I wish I read this instead of Dalrymple/Knaster's

        Bottom Line: Can't give a recommendation because I haven't fully read it

Learn Objective-C on the Mac, by Mark Dalrymple and Scott Knaster

        - Continuation from "Learn C on the Mac", but I didn't like it as much
        - Writing style was a bit confusing at times. I preferred Dave Mark's C book.
        - Mac-orientated (using Xcode 3.x)

        Bottom Line: Recommended, with reservations

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-- Cocoa Books: \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X (3rd ed), by Aaron Hillegass

        - Chapters 1-8 were fine. Chapters 9-35 are a NIGHTMARE for newbies.
        - Book uses new terms many times without defining them
            - Better know what a File's Owner is, or else Chap 9 will confuse you, etc
        - For one of the code examples the author wrote "I don't really expect you to
          understand every line of that code now, but browse through the method and try
          to get the gist."
        - Book must be read sequentially, and code examples must be done sequentially.
          Code examples in later chapters can reference code 5 chapters back. There's
          no skipping around in this book, even for unrelated topics. Very annoying as
          a reference book.
        - For non-newbies, gives a "taste" of some of Cocoa's popular API's. You'll
          have to read Apple's docs to really learn how to use them.
        - Reading this book after getting some Cocoa experience was much easier.

        Bottom Line: Very good intro to Cocoa's API's, but NOT for newbies coming
                     straight from an Objective-C book. Read another Cocoa book
                     first, program in Cocoa for 3-6 months, and then get this book.

Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X for Dummies (2nd ed), by Erick Tejkowski

        - THIS is the best "newbie" Cocoa book I've read. Very easy to understand
          and follow.
        - Hand-holds you the entire way.
        - Many "minor" errors in the book and code examples, which is its only
          downfall. However I managed to figure them all out and get every example
          working.

        Bottom Line: Recommended for newbies. Only caveat is there are a lot of minor
                     errors in the book, but I managed to figure them all out without
                     much sweat.

Dave Mark has also written a new Cocoa book which I haven't read: Learn Cocoa on the Mac, by Jack Nutting, David Mark, Jeff LaMarche. If it's anything like Mr. Mark's C book, it's probably pretty good. Check reviews on Amazon, etc...

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

Also of note, Apple announced Xcode 4 in June 2010, which will replace Xcode 3.x "sometime in the future". Currently it's in beta. It has a very different user interface than Xcode 3.x, meaning just about every Mac programming book will become dated the moment Xcode 4 comes out. Both 3 & 4 appear "similar", but different enough to confuse new programmers.

<comment><USER3> I've been using the Xcode 4 beta on and off for a few months and I don't think it's that much o a change. GCC was still the default compiler. The biggest change was that instead of having to use interface builder it's all n there. So while it may differ from the current books, a few minutes of familiarization should have you back on track.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone just recently getting into obj-c/iPhone development, finding good _and_ up-to-date books is hard. Heck it's even hard to find up-to-date answers on stackoverflow.

For example, the iPhone SDK book from pragprog. they list is great, but it's already a year old.

I own and use a handful of books, but seem to get the most out of online videos, forums, and the sample code at Apple.

Also, I find the "grapefruit" book from APress really good: <http://apress.com/book/view/9781430230243>

<comment><USER5> I'm a mobile developer who does tons of iPhone work. I buy pretty much every iPhone book out there: Basically, any book over 400 pages that is up to date with iOS 3 is good enough, as the iOS 4 changes aren't really that useful for the majority of people.

<comment><USER5> Except for video API's, those changed in 3.2 quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I cannot rate Erica Sadun's "iPhone Cookbook" high enough: some of the techniques it showed (especially the truly modal alert views) incredibly helpful, if slightly obscure.

<comment><USER7> Just be careful not to use the private APIs which are peppered through the book.

<comment><USER8> This is only an issue with the first version of Sadun's book. She has since cleaned the private API usage up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice iOS screencasts: <http://suitmymind.com/blog/category/cocoa-casts>

</comment><comment><USER10> What is your favorite book for learning Objective C ?</comment>


Venture Capital Returns Plummet - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2009/03/31/sneak-peek-first-quarter-maipo-data/

<comment><USER2> This is largely a consequence of the defeated IPO market, due to increased regulation on publically-traded companies. It's now much harder to IPO.

I think the home-run seeking mentality of VC has always been flawed, though. Maybe in the long term these changes will have some positive effects, if they can alter the goals and behavior of the VC firms so that their incentives are more closely aligned with those of entrepreneurs.</comment>


Dear Bandwagon (email rant sent to Gruber) - <AUTHOR> http://pastie.org/671887

<comment><USER2> Since no one else has said it yet, I'll point it out; that was a complete waste of time. You've done nothing other than spew vitriol at someone you've never met personally, essentially because they have an opinion you don't agree with.

You had the chance to say something constructive, but you didn't.

Going by that email, you don't seem to be a very nice person.</comment>


The Forum at Harvard School of Public Health: CRISIS IN JAPAN [Live] - <AUTHOR> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/forum/japan-crises.cfm

<comment><USER2> This is excellent, thank you. Miles better than any of the TV news coverage.</comment>


From a Googler: the Google interview process - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1z97rx/from_a_googler_the_google_interview_process/

<comment><USER2>
      I used to care much more. I used to try to help them. Try
      to make them feel good. But I can talk and talk, explain
      and explain, in the end we won't hire you if you can't
      reverse a linked list, or do a case-insensitive string
      comparison. I have done this so many times, I'm terribly
      frustrated about this. So now if you fuck up here, I'll
      just let you talk for 20 minutes, say "uh huh" once in a
      while and review code in the meantime. And then I'll ask
      you about "your most interesting project so far" or some
      bullshit like that.

Bah ha ha ha! This has totally happened to me on a number of interviews, but I've never interviewed for Google.

      ...you will have 3 interviews of 45 minutes, lunch, and 2
      more interviews. These are basically the same as phone
      screens, but you get to see the interviewers face to face.

      If you totally suck, they sometimes walk you out after
      lunch, and skip the last two interviews.

Oh my lol! I have also been hurriedly walked out of interviews! I cannot stop laughing while reading this.

      ...the interviewer would rather stab himself than hear you
      fail again. So he lets you tell a story while he zones
      out. In his rating, he will give you the lowest possible
      score, and this will end the interview process for you.

Oh man, so good. This made my day, because I've been on both sides of this animosity, and honesty about the realities of interviewing is refreshing. Grueling, tedious, tiresome processes make such animals of us all.

Interviewing sucks. The reason interviewing sucks is the exact same reason why direct sales and cold calls sucks. It's painful for everyone involved.

I go into every interview assuming that the interviewer just hates my guts, and have learned to pretty much laugh off failure, because fuck it. Also, when I get a sense that I'm very obviously failing, I've taken to deliberately failing spectacularly, at least to the amusement (or shocked dismay) of everyone in the room. When you know you're bombing, that's when bombing spectacularly can become the most fun.

All my worst interviews have taught me to go home and do some research on the glaring holes in my knowledge that I was just tested on. The more you interview, the more you'll tighten up for your next shot. Just keep interviewing. Something will stick eventually.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is an end-to-end write up on a Google technical interview experience: [http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=2055](http://symbo1ics.com/blog/?p=2055)

</comment><comment><USER4> I had to go through this painful process with another fairly well known SF company. After 4 rounds of phone interviews and a 3 hour long coding test, I was flown there. It was extremely nerve-wracking, and in the end expensive for both parties, since I a) didn't get the job b) travelled ~6000 miles to figure that out.

They told me they had paid for my hotel and I got there and there was no reservation. This is something they do because they can get away with it - they bet on most candidates not mentioning anything, and it allows them to cut costs on long-distance recruitment. Which right away turned me off of this company. I probably should have mentioned it anyway, but I felt it was underhanded enough that they are the type of people who would have penalized me for saying anything.

I was very ill at the time with a neurological condition, so that made things about 1000 times worse for me. Questions that should have been easy were difficult.

In retrospect I wish I had turned down the referral offer. It is not a company I would have liked to work for.

So companies - just be more considerate to your candidate's time and money, and when you say you've made a reservation, make it. I understand this is a cutthroat business, but I bet you can manage to do it without dishonesty. God only knows you have enough VC money to burn through.

</comment><comment><USER5> Googler here. This guys attitude does no one any good. He might just be "betting honest", but he sounds like an ass. Zoning out, doing code reviews, just letting the candidate talk and say uh, huh every once and a while? Terrible.

I've "only" done 50 interviews, and I don't particularly enjoy it that much, you do get a lot of bad candidates, but I'd never let that leak out into the interviews like that. I feel embarrassed for and because of this guy.

</comment><comment><USER6> Saw this on reddit. My first reaction involves calling this person a name not appropriate for civilized discourse. This is exactly why I turned down my last Google interview.

There is a reddit comment comparing engineers to garbagemen. I thought it was quite apt.

We need an anti-Google to bring balance to the Schwartz[Ref to spaceballs because it is oh so very late]!

</comment><comment><USER7> 7 hour+ interview? No thanks!

For the amount of responsibility and time you will put into your job, I would much rather start my own company and make much more in the long run.</comment>


Memoir of Growing Up Fat Forces France to Look in the Mirror - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/europe/gabrielle-deydier-france-obesity-on-ne-nait-pas-grosse.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 <comment><USER2> I'm French and I hope we do not align with the American cultural doctrine of self-reinforcement, which has, I dare say, slowly drifted towards a worrying train of thought were everything is equal, any opinion has value, any choice you make is to celebrated.

By all means, I don't see shaming as the sign of a healthy society and I hope for people never to have to suffer humiliation or belittling, but there should be, in my opinion, a certain level of acknowledgment that being overweight has dire consequences for not only one's health on the middle to long term, but also terrible side-effects in terms of public health and the economy at large.

As we're spending dozens of billions caring for diabetes, cholesterol, hypertension, heart attacks and the myriad of other diseases that correlate heavily with the lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet, we're neglecting research, schools and the social fabric that used to make France a great country to live in.

The ultimate irony is that we used to have a formula that worked just fine to gift us with one of the highest life expectancies in western societies a few decades ago, before we decided that Burger King, Coca Cola, Subway, McDonald's and KFC really were what we had been missing for so long.

<comment><USER3> On average, obese people are a smaller burden on the health care system because they die quickly (from a heart attack or something similar) rather than the drawn out deaths that people of average weight have. End-of-life care is by far the most expensive (health care wise) phase of a person's life.

<comment><USER4> Not true. First off, premature death from obesity-related illnesses, before retirement age, means that individual contributed less than a full working life into the system i.e. if you drop out of the workforce at 40 due to poor health, there's ~25 years of productivity and tax income that will not be realized.

Second, if you have the image of obesity related deaths being a sudden heart attack and dropping dead that same day, you'd be wrong. Diabetes, cancer, heart disease (within the spectrum of which a heart attack is only one likely consequence and sits alongside angina, strokes etc), these are long drawn-out declines that many obese people will suffer.

Third, accommodating obese patients requires significant specialist equipment, all of which places a burden on the system which would not be present if obese persons were not present. Specialized ambulances, MRI machines, gurneys, hoists, widened doorways etc.

"Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese."

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity- no...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/30/obesity-now-costs- americans-more-in-healthcare-costs-than-smoking/)

<comment><USER3> These are all interesting points for researchers to consider. I'm not a researcher so all I can do is read their conclusions and they say that lifetime costs for obese patients are still lower despite all these factors. You can read more here:

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212858.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212858.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > citing a book whose French author described with horror seeing Americans > eating alone, or at any time of day.

> "France is a very rules-based society," Ms. Saguy said. "There are rules > about eating in France, about mealtimes, and you need to follow the rules."

I would call that BS. French people eat whenever they want and nobody cares really. That being said, my personal experience is that French (and Europeans in general) are still much more conscious of what they eat than Americans, which is probably why they are thinner. I was surprised while living in the US to see even very educated people feed their kids with junk food and sodas.

However, this is gradually changing. More and more people eat junk food (e.g. Mac Donald's is extremely popular in France) thanks to food corporations propaganda and lobbying. Not surprisingly, obesity rates are increasing. Small relief, obese people won't be discriminated against when we're all fat.

<comment><USER6> > More and more people eat junk food thanks to food corporations propaganda > and lobbying.

I think there are simpler explanations. I imagine people like the way it tastes plus it's extremely cheap and takes very little time to prepare.

<comment><USER7> Doesn't account for why this would be happening more recently.

In the past in Europe, was fast food actually slow, expensive, and not that tasty?

<comment><USER8> Your question assumes the existence of fast food. The closet thing would probably be a bakery or chocolatier, but they don't really compare...

<comment><USER7> So fast food restaurants came into Europe without a concurrent marketing and advertising push? They just built the restaurants and people came, because it was tasty, fast, and cheap?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As a french, I don't think the blame is upon fat people, but more about obese people. I think the general view on obesity is that it is a health issue you can clearly do something about with just a little bit of will. I have no idea if this view is correct or not from a medical standpoint though.

On the other hand, i am a bit skeptical about the "you're fine no matter how you are" mentality in the US regarding obesity. It _is_ a health issue, so it's great not to blame people but saying "you can stay like this for how long as you want" is also a bit weird imho...

<comment><USER10> "it is a health issue you can clearly do something about with just a little bit of will" <\- That a little will can solve this seems obvious for thin people, but it doesn't reflect the reality of weight loss. In fact, this is the core of such discrimination; it seems so obvious to a thin person that the fat person is riddled with character flaws. Read up. Look around. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have this problem.

<comment><USER11> > That a little will can solve this seems obvious for thin people, but it > doesn't reflect the reality of weight loss.

As somebody who has lost weight and kept it off for years, I agree that it comes at a price—I need to be conscious of how much I eat every day, and devote most of my calories to relatively "satisfying" food. Basically, it's the food equivalent of needing to live within a budget.

The total cost: maybe 10 minutes a day, and I have to be careful about certain indulgences. And I have to commit to this _forever_.

Not everybody would find this equally easy, and some people have complicating factors such as eating disorders.

My private theory—based on having "budgeted" what I eat for years—is that a lot of modern processed food is high in calories, very tasty, and not very filling. It can be surprisingly hard to fight this. I guess that this is what some people mean by a bad "food environment."

<comment><USER10> IIRC, keeping the weight off for years puts you among the 5 percent that have done so successfully. That is remarkably telling, I think.

"My private theory—based on having "budgeted" what I eat for years—is that a lot of modern processed food is high in calories, very tasty, and not very filling. It can be surprisingly hard to fight this." <\- Absolutely this. Policy-wise, there couldn't be a better place to start. Some would seem to advocate more shaming, marginalization, tough love, etc. and that's just absurd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sorry, I'm struggling to see the problem in this. Unless you're genetically predisposed to being overweight, it is caused by diet and lifestyle. We know this. We have all known this for a long time. If you are actively choosing to avoid changing your diet and lifestyle, and the COST of your decision will eventually become something your employer and your fellow citizens must pay, to the point that it will lead to significant strain on finances, why should they support and embrace your behavior? Should we also fake sympathy for smokers?

This isn't a race or gender issue. This is a lifestyle issue. I know my opinion is politically incorrect, but this is what a lot of us are actually thinking. Even if we openly say the opposite.

<comment><USER13> I find it interesting that you took time to mention the possibility of people being "predisposed to being overweight" yet proceeded to make no other affordance for that possibility in your comment.

Is it not possible that most people who are overweight are so predisposed? This would make it not a "lifestyle issue".

In fact, given all the societal and health problems associated with being overweight, I find it hard to assume that many people would be "actively choosing" that path.

And yes, many of us who dislike smoking _do_ feel sympathy for smokers. Nicotine is addictive. This is why we spend money on public health programs to help people quit. Same with other kinds of drug addicts.

<comment><USER14> There probably is a genetic component to obesity, but that is only a thin sliver of the problem. People 200 years ago had indistinguishable genetics from today yet obesity was rare enough that it was a curiosity. Something has changed in the last 200 years and the list of suspects is basically down to diet and/or exercise.

I feel sympathy for nicotine addicts, just as I do for the obese. It's hard to pin down exactly how, but society (meaning some combination of their parents, peers, education, and government) has failed them. Focus on genetic components to obesity isn't technically wrong, but it doesn't help anybody get better.</comment></comment></comment>


Epic Systems uses health exemption to require 9000 employees to return to office - <AUTHOR> https://www.wpr.org/node/1678186 <comment><AUTHOR> Seems like they don't even have their network set up for proper remote work [1]

> "Staff who have returned to campus say there are many reasons why working at > Epic is better," Faulkner wrote. "For example, they say that when we are at > work we are on the Epic network and connections to the software and each > other are better.

And they're using health exemption meant for hospitals and frontline workers to get software developers back in the office [2]

> Epic is exempt from mass gathering requirements for meetings under the July > emergency health order because it falls under health care operations, said > Christy Vogt, health education coordinator for Public Health Madison and > Dane County.

There's an unlisted internal video that goes into more detail on how they think they can do this [3]

[1] [https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/health- care/20...](https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/health- care/2020/08/04/epic-systems-says-employees-must-return-its-verona-campus- sept-21/3291216001/)

[2] [https://www.modernhealthcare.com/technology/epic-systems- req...](https://www.modernhealthcare.com/technology/epic-systems-requiring- workers-come-back-sept-21)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sipmh8GIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3sipmh8GIw)</comment>


Effect of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 80 Covid-19 patients [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf <comment><USER2> Still no control group, though. Isn't the author of this study the same individual whose history of faking data was discussed on Twitter earlier today?

[https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine- genius-d...](https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius- didier-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/)

Yep, it's him. I'll wait for a reproduction from an independent group before believing this.

If I may say: be especially wary of people who tell you that what you want to believe is true. It's not necessarily that they're more likely to lie. It's that your guard is more likely to be down against mistakes in their reasoning. Doubt is the province of the wise.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand why there wasn't a control - placebo effect would matter here and 1/80 dead could just simply be an effect of these patients being more closely monitored in the study, it doesn't sound too far off from the 1.2% death rate you see cited in some publications. This just isn't a confidence inducing paper.

<comment><USER4> It's important to note the 1.2% case fatality rate includes all patients, including the 80% or so who do not require hospitalization.

This study was performed on a group requiring hospitalization, so a 1.2% mortality rate would appear extremely promising in that context.

<comment><USER2> Where in the study does it say that those with a low NEWS score were omitted? The only selection criterion I saw is pcr-positive for sars cov 2.

"Patients with PCR-documented SARS-CoV-2 RNA from a nasopharyngeal sample were admitted to our infectious diseases (ID) ward."

Doesn't list any other criteria. This is a small part of why control groups are so important.

<comment><USER3> It's also a really well written paper. Isn't it impressive how people just read into it and assume that there must be all these criteria that make the data better without them being detailed or a control group? Not many academic papers can communicate things (of differing levels of veracity) that they want to communicate but can't say explicitly so well.

<comment><USER2> There seem to be a huge number of people reading about this topic online who just want to be comforted and are willing to throw all critical thinking out the window to that end. That's the only way I can figure why all these optimistic but poorly designed papers are being cheered on places like HN and /r/covid19, not to mention the news.

<comment><USER3> Theres a reason even the language of scams - snake oil - has an origin in health panacea. Health and money have ways of getting people to believe things that they should be quite a bit more sceptical of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > [On patient died but] For all other patients in this cohort of 80 people, > the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin resulted in a > clinical improvement that appeared significant when compared to the natural > evolution in patients with a definite outcome.

Note patients were excluded based on an extensive list of contra-indications, and there was care taken to avoid one of the known side-effects, heart arrhythmia; EEGs were taken before and during treatment and reviewed by cardiologists.

Also note that this treatment is not preventive, but rather would be used to treat people with serious illness, to shorten the illness. Given that, and the lengthy list of contra-indications and potential for serious side-effects, it could be useful in reducing deaths among infected people, but not in reducing infections, nor -- given you need to be pretty sick to justify the risks -- in reducing hospitalizations.

</comment><comment><USER6> Lest others also experience HN's hug-of-death of the original source, Google's cached version ([https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bkjo_-...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bkjo_- CYAegJ:https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)) works as interim alternative version of the original PDF before the link returns or e.g. Wayback Machine has a chance to archive it.

(This aside, heed @asdfasgasdgasdg's very prudent note of caution; other independent and more reputable replications are essential.

As of this writing there are at least 19 such hydroxychloroquine trials in US ([https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Hydroxychloroqui...](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Hydroxychloroquine&cond=COVID-19)) and more beyond (though WHO clinical trial site listing them is also apparently under critically-heavy load).)

</comment><comment><USER4> The lack of a control group is frustrating, but the comparison to outcomes in untreated groups documented in China still makes me feel this treatment holds promise:

"For all other patients in this cohort of 80 people, the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin resulted in a clinical improvement that appeared significant when compared to the natural evolution in patients with a definite outcome, as described in the literature. In a cohort of 191 Chinese inpatients, of whom 95% received antibiotics and 21% received an association of lopinavir and ritonavir, the median duration of fever was 12 days and that of cough 19 days in survivors, with a 28% case-fatality rate (18). The favourable evolution of our patients under hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a relatively rapid decrease in viral RNA load as assessed by PCR, which was even more rapid when assessed by culture."

</comment><comment><USER7> I find it too easy for people not on the front line to criticise those who are.

1\. Chloroquine has been used since 1949 for treating a range of diseases including malaria, and is therefore a well known drug which causes complication only in rare cases because its side effects and use are well known, it's even given in prevention to healthy people travelling in certain parts of the world

2\. Pr Raoult has demonstrated 13 years ago its effectiveness against coronaviruses

3\. The current CV19 pandemic is killing people at an alarming rate

4\. In Europe hospitals are stretched beyond capacity meaning more are dying for lack of space/equipment/attention/treatment, and not because of CV19 itself

5\. As a world renown specialist Pr Raoult has been in contact with doctors in China who were the first to use it to treat CV19 and observe its effectiveness in greatly reducing the viral load

6\. As director of a research hospital Pr Raoul is on the front line for handling CV19 patients and is responsible for making life and death decisions not just for his own life but for all patients arriving in mass to his door

7\. There is no other alternative treatment to date for CV19, some other drugs are promising but are either much newer and less known, or heavier on side effects and cost

Now take into account the above facts, imagine yourself in Pr Raoult shoes, and realise that withholding the use of chloroquine in such dire situation, where the luxury of a full study cannot be afforded and the drug is very well known, can be considered not only immoral but also criminal. In other words when the choice is either to let people die with a "wait and see" attitude, or to save lives by significantly reducing the viral load and infection with a well known drug, the choice is clear. Another way to view the situation: you are a policeman stopping an ambulance not respecting the driving code and driving too fast, and then learn there is a dying patient in the back, what do you do?

Also Pr Raoult does not claim he has done a full study. Those that get finicky and still want to have a full study before allowing its use are irresponsible people who have no idea of what's it's like on the ground. Those that criticise him as a lone advocate are really out of touch with reality: he is definitely not alone, he's got 200 staff under his responsibility, 80 of which are researchers, he has been on the forefront of his field worldwide (see his wikipedia page), knows very well how to perform perfect academic studies, and is and has been constantly talking with specialists and doctors around the world since the earliest time of the pandemic.

<comment><USER3> Chloroquine has side effects and the drug might not work. It'd make the front blinds a hell of a lot worse if we start giving people whatever without any scientific basis just because one charismatic scientist has been pushing for it. Ignoring the science is what got us here. Staying blind to science to pursue false hope isn't going to get us out of here. Remember how during Ebola we were all convinced that drug by Gilead was going to work since it seemed to have an impact on the mechanism of action etc etc? Remember how it failed after rigorous studies? Imagine if we'd just decided it worked without testing it on preliminary data and given it to people on the front lines to protect themselves.

These regulations are written in blood. Dengue vaccines are another example. Ignoring science got us here. Ignoring science again will keep us here.

<comment><USER8> Today France authorized the use of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of covid-19 - based on this study. So the study has had impact on policy already.</comment></comment></comment>


Start Programming Now with the FREE ebook. No CS degree needed. - <AUTHOR> http://startprogrammingnowbook.com
 - You don't have a Computer Science degree ?
 - You would love to create software but don't know where to start ?
 - Want to put your software skills into real practice ?
If the answer to any of these question is yes, then this book is for you. I've been there. I don't have a Computer Science degree. My degree is in Telecommunication Engineering and not in Software Engineering. Software was always what I wanted to do. Therefore I decided to learn it myself. I read many different books and practiced a lot. Most of books are so in depth. There was nothing that explains the most important basics of different aspects of programming. This is what this book is about. It helps you to connect the dots and start programming something useful.
Let me know what you think.
Cheers, Alex <comment><USER2> Awesome book. Thanks for making it available for free!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome. I hope it's helpful for you.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Get notified when new presidential polls are released - <AUTHOR> https://pingpoll.me

<comment><USER2> Not being a US citizen, I'm always quite stunned by what I perceive as an obsession with polling results. Especially when fundamental flaws in the US voting system (see, for example, <http://www.gregpalast.com/latinos-too-lazy- to-vote/>) seem to get widely ignored.

Sites like <http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/> may be great in bringing insightful reflections on statistics to a larger audience, but by focusing exclusively on the maths of elections, they might actually reinforce this ignorance towards actual political issues.

<comment><USER3> The New Yorker is talking about this very subject today: [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/da...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/david- brooks-v-nate-silver-prediction-polls.html)

I read that article this morning and still signed up for pingpoll minutes later..

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing that link, good article.

Still, its main concern seems to be the predictive value of forecast models, given that "stuff happens" -- while I'm more concerned with the fact that the obsession with polling and forecasts coincides (hard to tell if it's a cause or an effect) with widespread ignorance when it comes to massively undemocratic features of the US voting system.

<comment><USER4> What is your thesis, exactly? People have a finite amount of attention they are willing to devote to politics, and the obsession with polling thus excludes them from paying attention to these supposedly undemocratic features?

Seems far fetched to me but I'd imagine it's testable. One could test people about their knowledge of poll data and then see whether a higher degree of interest in polls correlated with a lower awareness of these undemocratic feature. I would imagine you'd find your thesis refuted in such a test.

Anyhow, it's likely you're trying to convey something that I'm not quite understanding so please feel free to correct me.

Speaking personally, I would posit that the media puts more focus on polls because they are both interesting and timely to viewers, where as discussions about the flaws of first-past-the-post voting are more dry and are not timely -- timeliness being a crucial determiner of what gets reported as news. So unless there are newsmakers actively making a spectacle about the issue, you're not going to here about it in mainstream media.

<comment><USER2> If you're asking me for a thesis, then I guess it would include the idea that what people should be willing to devote to politics is more than, and fundamentally different from, _attention_. Once politics become politics of attention, they become, quite precisely, the spectacle you're referring to: a real-time feed of gossip, gaffes and stats.

More specifically though, my impression was, quite simply, that obsession with details, as a mainstream phenomenon, often coincides with the inability or unwillingness to see the bigger picture. While I can't back this up with statistical data, I'm pretty sure there's a well-founded psychological term for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yikes. Exactly what we need; more people focused on polls that all say the same thing--the election is close. Knowing that Gallup says it's 51-49 one way or Rasmussen says it's 51-49 the other way contributes exactly nothing to the world.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Developer here. I helped build this site after noticing I was checking presidential polls like 12 times a day and really wanted a quick disposable tool for the next 2 weeks to get them as soon as they are released.

On Nov 6th, we'll shut the site down and permanently delete the entire list.

Hope you find it useful!

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll also be tweeting out poll results from <http://twitter.com/pingpoll>

<comment><USER6> This should be on <https://pingpoll.me/>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd be more interested in an app that blocked out polls and political news.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, come on. It's only 2 more weeks. Just think of it like a really big sporting event, except way less impactful ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's a slightly OT question, for politically inclined folks:

How likely would you be to look at a site that on election day scrapes election results as they come in from various swing states, and extrapolates the state result by projecting each county individually from already reported precincts?

Obvious some assumptions about precinct homogeneity and turnout implicit in that, but it'd provide at least some value over the raw results ("OMG with 5% of the vote in, Obama's leading by 20 points in Ohio!")

<comment><USER9> I'm almost enough of a political nerd and devloper nerd to try this, but I think the hardest part would be the scraping... Since the news sites have probably changed their formatting since the last election, it would be hard to test the results until they start displaying. If it take an hour to get all the bugs worked out in the scraper, well by then, the scraping might be usless. Maybe there's some kind of centralized API for accessing raw election results, though.

<comment><USER10> I'll bet you could get each state's official SOS results relatively easily. However, "calling" the election depends on more than just the official SOS reports. CNN will call things when their exit polls show one thing and then the early rounds of official results confirm them.

<comment><USER11> I think you'd need more granularity than SOS websites provide. They tend to be county by county, and you really need precinct by precinct.

<comment><USER12> I think county by county results would be enough to do a reasonable prediction but I don't think SOS websites are updated with those results in anything close to real time on election night.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Living in an "important swing state" at the moment, the last thing I need is more factoids about the presidential race. Every form of media is completely saturated with the same talking points, and it is quite exhausting. It would be nice to hear more about the senate, house and state elections. I don't think I've seen any media coverage/ads for any election besides the presidential race.

<comment><USER14> Really? I might not be in an "important swing state" but when my wife doesn't fast forward through them on the DVR I see plenty of local/state/and congressional commercials. Unless in your state the presidential campaigns are buying up ALL of the available airtime.

Edit: what about outside of prime time. Say during your local 5 o'clock news?

<comment><USER13> Mostly I watch TV at night, after 7pm or so. So I suppose it's possible that the local ads are played during an earlier block like the local news.

I have a feeling though, that the presidential campaigns are buying a significant portion of the available air time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting. I don't want every poll, but I would like to be notified when Real Clear and 538 are updated. Maybe with a tolerance band when they break out of a certain range.

</comment><comment> mr-ron What is the source of polls this app is using?

<comment><USER16> We used all of these: Rasmussen Reports, ABC News/Washington Post, Investors Business Daily/TIPP, Gallup, Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun, CBS News, NBC News/Wall St. Journal, Washington Times: JZ Analytics, Politico/GWU/Battleground.

<comment> mr-ron I notice that there was a state poll released by Rasmussen but I haven't gotten an email. Is this only tracking national polls?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, just the main national tracking polls. We email every one out so at the state level it might get overwhelming. And we can't really put too much into a filtering setup since it's a product that'll autodeadpool in 2 weeks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can I see them without getting mail, but by RSS for example?

<comment><USER16> You can follow @pingpoll

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The site seems down at the moment</comment>


Snabb: 100 Gbit/s pure software switching using Lua (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/snabbco/snabb <comment><USER2> I would love to see an IXIA or Spirent line rate RFC2544 test with an imix packet sizes. Most servers and OS stacks cannot do line rate 100G/bits today without a ton of tweaking. Netflix has a few blogs on it. In my current company we moved our NAS to 2x100G but the build servers at 10G and 25g (Ubuntu) cannot max a link in their normal operation (which includes pulling 4g VMs). There is some low hanging fruit here tweeting wise we can do but..

The NAS is TrueNAS with SSD and all the ZFS goodness, ZIL, etc. I can built hand crafted iperf streams between it and another 100g server that hit line rate (including overhead).

The reason for the 100g is there are racks and racks of BS that pull down their images so aggregate we can hit 100g with a fully non-blocking Clos fabric.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > The reason for the 100g is there are racks and racks of BS that pull down > their images so aggregate we can hit 100g with a fully non-blocking Clos > fabric.

It may not pan out in practice, but in theory isn't that the perfect usecase for p2p image distribution?

<comment><USER3> could probably do it with BTsync if you don't want to build your own. Or there's also Syncthing which is more open source

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h I was thinking ipfs, but yeah there's lots of ways to skin this cat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Something "fast" named "snabb", from Switzerland. I bet they get their kicks out of triggering Swedish people.

Snabb is Swedish for fast. Switzerland is often confused with Sweden and vice- versa, stereotypically by the under-educated kind of americans.

Grr. :]

<comment><USER5> Well the creator of Snabb lives in Sweden.

<comment><USER6> He used to, but I believe he now resides in Switzerland.

<comment><USER7> Moved back to Sweden recently, as it happens :)

<comment><USER4> Sorry about the timing :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting, thanks for sharing. It's always nice to see Lua in the wild. This headline immediately reminded me of this[0] talk from CCC 2018 comparing different high level languages for writing userspace network drivers.

[0]: [https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9670-safe_and_secure_drivers_in_...](https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9670-safe_and_secure_drivers_in_high- level_languages)

</comment><comment><USER9> See also

2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13775773](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13775773)

2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8008963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8008963)

</comment><comment><USER10> Just out of curiosity, what kind of speeds can be achieved by a pure software switch using say C or pure assembly?

<comment><USER11> C probably won't give you much, difference. Assembly, carefully tweaked, might - the kind of stuff like Quake issuing FDIV every 16 pixels in software renderer, where the assembly intimately matches various aspects of microarchitecture.

<comment><USER12> What are you basing this on exactly?

<comment><USER11> Despite years of propaganda, C is not well matched to CPUs currently in use (quite opposite in places), and the typical optimizations don't necessarily work when dealing with external I/O that you need to do in a switch.

Essentially, even if you write in C, reaching higher speeds will involve using "assembly masquerading as C" rather than depending on compiler optimizations.

Also, Snabb uses LuaJIT, which already generated quite tight code, so the performance gap that I suspect some imagine just isn't that wide.

<comment><USER13> >C is not well matched to CPUs \+ >depending on compiler optimizations \+ >Snabb uses LuaJIT .. quite tight code

==

You can write great C-based systems and avoid assembly if you a) know, always, what your compiler is doing and b) know, always, what your CPU is doing...

<comment><USER14> I'd be interested to learn about significantly complex, nontrivial systems of say 100K to 1M LOC scale that require reasoning about every single instruction from the perspective of every other instruction, in order for the system to work.

<comment><USER15> You do not do that. Instead you optimize the short, critical part.

Of course it does not apply to everything, you need a few hotspots, but it is quite common: audio/video codecs, scientific computation, games, crypto... And even networking.

<comment><USER13> And with Lua (and C, and C++) its pretty easy to manage the complexity. Just put things where they belong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> could someone explain where in the stack does Snabb sit vs something like BPF ? [http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2019-12-02/bpf-a-new- type-o...](http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2019-12-02/bpf-a-new-type-of- software.html)

it seems that Snabb uses pflua at its core - which claims to be faster than BPF ( [https://github.com/snabbco/snabb/blob/b9da7caa1928256a3b4908...](https://github.com/snabbco/snabb/blob/b9da7caa1928256a3b490867e9bc62dfbcd21ede/lib/pflua/README.md) )

<comment><USER17> BPF's claim to fame is that it is confidently secured enough that it can be used to run user-provided code in kernel space.

Snabb side-steps the kernel by providing the performance aspects of kernel- like access while staying securely in user space.

<comment><USER18> Currently that user is almost always the administrator (root). BFP is more safe than secure, if that distinction makes some sense.

So it's great because the eBPF verification makes sure that whatever the user loads doesn't blow up the kernel immediately, it's very restricted (no infinite loops, so not Turing complete, can only call predefined API functions, etc). But it still gets JITed into machine code, and still has access to a vast trove of kernel gadgets and data. So it's like a power tool that was designed to be almost impossible to cut your own limbs off with.

But it's still a power tool, it still not something you give to any random passer by.

<comment><USER19> eBPF has had many exploits, the most recent of which was just a few months ago: [https://www.thezdi.com/blog/2020/4/8/cve-2020-8835-linux- ker...](https://www.thezdi.com/blog/2020/4/8/cve-2020-8835-linux-kernel- privilege-escalation-via-improper-ebpf-program-verification)

Original BPF was safe by design (no verifier needed) but slow and far more restrictive, and even then there were exploits over the years. When eBPF and then eBPF JIT became a thing it was entirely predictable what would happen.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to add Google+ to your Facebook integration - <AUTHOR> http://googleplusplatform.blogspot.com/2013/08/integrating-google-with-existing-social.html

<comment><USER2> If anyone has any questions, feel free to comment here or on the post, and we will answer!</comment>


The State Of Web Development Ripped Apart In 25 Tweets By One Man - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/30/joe-hewitt-web-development/ <comment><USER2> Note that the story was posted on April 30th, 2010.</comment>


Show HN: GoBox – GO sandbox to run untrusted code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nishitm/goBox <comment><USER2> I'm afraid this tool is very easy to circumvent. It only checks the first argument to a syscall for containing a forbidden path.

But for example openAt gets it's path as the second argument.

[http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man2/openat.2.html](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/openat.2.html)

This tool is a nice demo for how to use ptrace in golang. BUT PLEASE CHECK THE CODE BEFORE USING THIS FOR ANYTHING SECURITY RELATED

<comment><USER2> Edit: OpenAt is not a valid counterexample since the program checks file descriptors. But e.g renameAt[0] allows to overwrite protected files. There are numerous other options to circumvent that tool too.

[0]: [http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man2/renameat.2.html](http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man2/renameat.2.html)</comment></comment>


Microsoft will ban users for sharing screenshots from pornographic game - <AUTHOR> https://www.windowscentral.com/xbox-banning-people-taking-clips-vaguely-pornographic-xbox-game <comment><AUTHOR> > Previously I stated that you could get automatically banned even if you > didn't share the screenshots publicly, but it's unclear whether or not that > is the case as I've been given conflicting reports.

Regardless, Microsoft seems to be going the way of increased censorship. Recent laws passed in congress _implicate websites_ which have illegal user- submitted content. As a result, we've seen the depreciation of Craigslist personals and certain YouTube gun videos. Such legislation may pave the way for tighter control within the gaming industry.

<comment><USER2> *Deprecation, and you meant "shutdown" in any case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yikes! You're right, thanks for catching that. For some reason, I can't edit my comment anymore (maybe too late), otherwise I'd fix it.</comment></comment></comment>


Managing Millennials Won't Work – You Need to Lead Millennials to Greatness - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/managing-millennials-wont-work-you-need-to-lead-millennials-to-greatness-ae54c3b74fdd <comment><USER2> The white collar professions figured this out _decades_ ago. They even used to have career mentors, professional mentors, and a lot more people are starting to rediscover and therefore think is all new. It's not. It all started going away in the 80s and 90s when all anyone cared for was next quarter's numbers. Everything that didn't directly contribute to the bottom line got slashed and we've been suffering ever since. Nice to see businesses are beginning to reassess the value of these positions and rethink the purpose of management. Meanwhile this is another case of everything old eventually becomes new again.</comment>


Why do the poor remain with us?  - <AUTHOR> http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-do-poor-remain-with-us.html <comment><USER2> I think the "recent entry" effect is underemphasized in a lot of discussions. It is like the old not-quite-paradox where you can move a kid between class A and class B and increase the average score in both rooms: transfer a middle class Mexican family to the southern United States and twelve months later _every actual human is better off_ , but both Mexico and the United States suffer statistically.

<comment><USER3> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "They have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history."

I think this guy has never walked down skid row in a big city. If we act like a whole subset of people don't exist we can make crazy claims like the poor are blessed.

<comment><USER5> It's sad that you're one of the few who can see this and yet the other replies to your comment seem to give bizarre rationalizations of why it's okay to be poor. I don't think there's an excuse at all. Go to Denmark or Canada or a number of other countries and they've all but wiped out poverty. It's a pathetic rationalization that poverty "is relative." The more I read HN the more tired I get reading these over-used libertarian fanatical positions. The poor are not just drug addicts, there are many people who've had much fewer opportunities and never had a chance to go to college or get an education. There are many many people who fall into "the working poor" look at any number of people stuck in dead end jobs but with little to no ability to get out of the situation.

Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.

<comment><USER6> Really? They wiped out poverty?

<http://www.redbarnet.dk/Default.aspx?ID=2208> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada> <http://www.economist.com/node/17581844>

Poverty exists in every nation in the world.

There are a small percentage of people that have mental or physical issues, and they should be helped by the government. The rest need to get jobs.

If you are stuck in a dead-end job, I don't feel sorry for you. I was stuck in one. It takes hard work, dedication, and sacrifice to get out. I've know a ton of people stuck in those types of jobs and most of them weren't willing to sacrifice their free time for their career. Instead of sitting at home and watching TV, playing video games, or hanging out with your friends when you get home from work, educate yourself. We are in an age where you can get tons of free information online. MIT even has free courses. Hell, if you want to go the less legal route, you can find almost any college textbook in pdf format, for free.

I'm tired of people making excuses for lazy people. It reminds me of when I was in school: we would have group projects where one or two people would do all of the work and the rest (usually 4-5 people) would sit and earn the same amount of credit. I suppose this was a model for real life.

"Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours."

If you have a job that anybody can do, you aren't going to get paid very much..because its value is low. Making money has never been just about working hard. It also takes intelligence, skill, and there needs to be value in it.

<comment><USER7> Making money is about exploiting economic opportunities. "Value" is an almost meaningless word. The garbage men who take the trash off my curb provide more value than a lot of white collar management, in my opinion. If you're either intelligent and skillful, you'll certainly have a better chance of identifying a desirable economic niche to fill and being able to work your way towards it. But is it right that many of the hardest working people in society, doing undesirable jobs, are compensated so much less than "knowledge workers"? Do you really think an 8 hour day sitting at a desk deserves twice as much pay as an 8 hour day digging a ditch? What the fuck is value? The compensation of a ditch digger has more to do with what a ditch digger can be offered to sustain himself than with any intrinsic 'value' of his work. That's true of a lot of shitty jobs, and it's bullshit that the people who have figured out how to exploit these shitty jobs to generate 'value' also somehow deserve respect, while the exploited are denigrated for their moral failures (such as laziness).

<comment><USER6> "The garbage men who take the trash off my curb provide more value than a lot of white collar management, in my opinion"

The garbage men in my city get paid $50,000+/year (it's in the midwest). I think this is a pretty good wage.

"Do you really think an 8 hour day sitting at a desk deserves twice as much pay as an 8 hour day digging a ditch? What the fuck is value?"

It's not for me (or you) to decide. If someone is willing to pay a ditch digger $300,000/year, so be it. The market decides value and it's usually based on supply/demand. Since anyone who is under 40, healthy, and has two legs can dig a ditch, I don't see the wages being that high.

"That's true of a lot of shitty jobs, and it's bullshit that the people who have figured out how to exploit these shitty jobs to generate 'value' also somehow deserve respect, while the exploited are denigrated for their moral failures (such as laziness)."

Why don't you start a company and pay ditch diggers the same as office workers? I know you won't, because you would rather force other companies to do it instead.

<comment><USER7> Your point about supply and demand determining value is well taken, and I acknowledge that is the way capitalist economies operate. I was criticizing it because I find the commodification of labor to be dehumanizing. If only there were some theory of value that took labor into account...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm guessing one of the big reasons we still have poor people is simply human preferences, as well as the fact that poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms.

Some people prefer to consume goods and services. These people trade work for money, and have many goods and services.

Other people prefer to consume leisure and avoid work. They have a standard of living lower than the workers (from who they receive large subsidies), but still much larger than the historical average. If we properly accounted for leisure, we would realize how well off even the "poor" are.

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf> (This report shows that most of the poor consume leisure.)

<comment><USER9> Yes, the reason that poor people are poor is that they're lazy.

And the reason rich people are rich is because they're hard-working and deserving.

It has nothing to do with educational opportunities, wealthy parents, or anything like that. That 50-year-old housekeeper who almost graduated from high school, but couldn't because she had to work after her mother lost one of her two jobs? She's poor because SHE'S LAZY, never mind that she spends 9 hours a day scrubbing toilets. And the CEO who got the job because his father is a Senator and works about 10 hours a week? He's rich because HE DESERVES IT.

> <http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf> (This report shows that most of the > poor consume leisure.)

It shows nothing of the sort. The word "leisure" isn't even in that report. In fact the report says that the working poor are usually screwed by circumstances beyond their control - layoffs, involuntary part-time work, pay that is illegally below minimum wage.

<comment><USER8> If you bothered to read the first couple of paragraphs of the report, it would tell you that most of the poor are _not working poor_ (by choice). If you skipped ahead to the tables, you'd realize it also tells you that only 12% of the poor work full time for at least 27 weeks/year.

You are committing a logical fallacy. You are acting as if I made a blanket statement rather than a statistical one, and refuting only the (obviously false) blanket statement.

If you want a report on leisure, rather than simply not working, here you go: <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm>

That doesn't specifically carve out the poor, but it shows that people with low income consume 30 min/day more leisure than the highest income groups. The "not employed" (a category which encompasses about 80% of the poor) get considerably more than 30 min/day.

Sorry if the inconvenient facts get in the way of your moral posturing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The trouble is that the poverty rate, like the unemployment rate, can never actually fall to zero in a market economy. "Full employment" still results in an unemployment rate of 2 - 6% (depending on how you're counting.) There are always going to be layoffs, family illnesses, fights with the boss, etc. that keep everyone from being employed all the time. In a healthy economy, though, those people are quickly cycling through unemployment and back into the workforce.

In a similar way, something like a 10% poverty rate would probably qualify as "zero poverty." The goal, then, of anti-poverty initiatives should not be to eliminate poverty or to simply provide for the basic needs of the poor (1). The goal should be to ensure that each person below the poverty line is set up to rise up out of poverty as quickly as possible. The trouble is that the programs that help the poor the most (education, substance abuse treatment) are labor-intensive and expensive.

(1) One possible exception - providing for the basic needs of children in poverty.

<comment><USER11> The other issue, which has gotten more and deserved press lately, is that of zero marginal product workers: [http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01...](http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/cowen- and-lemke-on-the-job-market.html) . Some people do not appear to offer any margin on their labor, which is a big structural problem that I don't think anyone knows how to solve. If you're interested in the subject, see the link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ever see a poor person in a Hugh Grant movie? I propose ending poverty by shuttling Hugh Grant all around the world.

</comment><comment><USER13> A corollary question, Who Are the Poor [1]?

\----

[1]: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug>

</comment><comment><USER14> There are two ways not to be poor: either you're productive yourself or you are supported by someone who is productive.

If you are not productive, it's because you don't want to be or because you can't. You may not want to be productive if it's easier or more pleasant not to be (eg, if you're receiving large unemployment check from the government.) You can't be productive if factors outside of your control prevent you (eg, you suffer from a severe handicap, you're in prison, or no one will hire you.)

If you're not supported by someone, it's because you either don't want help or you don't have anyone in your life whose willing and able to support you.

In the modern, these two cases (being productive and having someone willing and able to support you) are often merged. For example, there are many people who are essentially professional beggars. They are not productive in the way a farmer is. A farmer works at farming and lives directly off of the wealth produced by the farm which he trades. In contrast, a fundraiser for a charity works at convincing people to give for something that is only indirectly beneficial to themselves.

Sometimes the same person may play both of these roles. A politician may ask a working person to vote for him because he will provide students with financial aid. The politician in this case is acting as a kind of professional beggar on behalf of students. The worker who votes for the politician does not expect to receive a direct benefit. The worker's vote is an act of charity. The same politician may ask a student for her vote because he will increase her government-provided student aid. The student's vote is a kind of business decision. (Although of questionable morality since her vote is not a vote for charity so much as a vote for coercing others to give.)

The social welfare state has also given rise to what are essentially unemployed beggars: People who in the past might have lived off of the charity of others but now don't even ask for support. They simply declare their need to the government which supports them.

<comment><USER15> I think you have a major misconception about how welfare works in the U.S. The idea of a "large government check" or that living off of welfare is preferable to a living wage job, is not really realistic. Since welfare reform in the 90's, TANF, for instance, runs out in just over two years.

Further, countries which have the greatest welfare systems available, don't suffer from the kind of malaise people often incorrectly correlate with the availability of welfare.

<comment><USER14> The choice that welfare allows is: welfare (much leisure with little money) versus work (little leisure with X money), where X depends on your productivity. For people with little productivity, welfare looks very attractive.

<comment><USER15> You make a series of egregious assumptions in your analysis of poverty. First, is that "productivity" is fixed in any way. New skills can be learned, attitudes can change, etc. I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst the poor, instead arguing that _depression_ and social alienation are greater issues than a culture of leisure.

Second, you ignore the point that welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual. TANF expires after 60 months. Unemployment runs out. Disability requires a disability, etc.

In fact, there's a strong case against what you're arguing, because countries such as Norway, Sweden, Germany, which have extensive welfare systems, do not follow the trajectory of encouraging low productivity as you would suggest they do.

<comment><USER14> > I would especially argue against the idea that leisure is a virtue amongst > the poor. . .

Leisure may not be _good_ for the poor (because it leads to depression and social alienation) but it is _valued_ by the poor. Just like an alcoholic may value a drink even though it causes him harm. All things being equal, leisure is generally preferred over work.

> welfare, in the U.S., is not perpetual . . .

The fact that the government-offered choice not to work may not be permanent does not mean that it does not contribute to poverty. If I can spend spend five years of my life not working, making kids, and getting myself in trouble, not only am I likely to be poor during those five years, but I may well continue to be poor for a long time thereafter as a result of the choices I made during those five years.

See [http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish- models-869?page=...](http://nationalinterest.org/article/swedish- models-869?page=show) for a long answer on why Sweden does not present a good model for welfare.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Weekend project, a Chrome extension to notify on friends' 4sq checkins - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cpcblbjkgjocjkbdngceojpghgppcmkc

<comment><AUTHOR> And it's opensource: <http://code.google.com/p/chrome-4sq></comment>


Ask HN: How much should be my equity? - <AUTHOR>

I am joining a startup as a co-founder.
The founder has raised a small amount of funds. He is willing to pay me salary (which is less than the market-rate) plus is willing to give me 6% equity.
Is 6% equity enough (when I am being paid) ? or paid founders even given any equity? <comment><USER2> There are two views I would consider valid. One, you are a co-founder getting some split of the equity. Who then turns around and sells your equity to the other founder(s), this is where your salary comes from. Second, You are really employee number one. The founder(s) are giving you a nice title and a sign on bonus of 6% equity.

On the whole you give way too little information on the deal to make a real call. Though it sounds closer to the second option than the first.

<comment><USER3> I agree with option 1. But in order to calculate how much your salary is worth in equity, you'd need to estimate the worth of the company at some point in the future, your hourly rate and the risk that is involved. In his case, if there is already funding, you could take the value of the company at the time of funding as a benchmark. If they got funding from a well established angel investor or VC, you also have an idea of the odds for success (1 in 10?). What's the going rate for a full time developer? Just multiply et voila... You know how much equity you want for your first year of work.

<comment><USER3> But I already see one problem with this: your co-founders are probably working at a much lower "excepted hourly rate". I've heard people claim that the average silicon valley entrepeneur earns less in 10 years than someone working at McDonalds. In other words, you may need to be willing to accept an irrationally low amount of equity if you need a cash salary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's 6% [6% of the company stock] _before dilution_.

Depending on the type of stock, you can end up with squat [.0001% of the company] when the money actually comes in.

If it really was/is a cofounder position, wouldn't your equity would be comparable in % and type/preference to that of the other cofounder(s)?

</comment><comment><USER5> 6% equity + salary isn't a co-founder. You're an employee.</comment>


How Edwin Hubble discovered galaxies outside our own - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2016/11/20/13677046/edwin-hubble-andromeda-galaxy <comment><USER2> Hubble provided the evidence, proving that philosopher Immanuel Kant's hypothesis, that some nebula were other galaxies, was correct.

But see also: [http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1562/mule-driver-measure- univ...](http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1562/mule-driver-measure-universe/)</comment>


Does DST Save Energy? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Indiana (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429 <comment><USER2> Sold. So next summer we just ignore the switch to DST? Or next fall we ignore the switch back to standard time?

<comment><USER3> Let's stay on DST instead of rolling the clocks back. It was pitch black outside by 4:30 today, and there's another four weeks to go until the solstice. I like to have some chance of seeing the sun in the winter.

<comment><USER4> Why? Just drop DST and adjust the _schedules_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I say we just adjust for 30 minutes and stay there.</comment>


Lisp is Poetry and Most Programmers Want Prose (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.adventnet.com/svembu/2006/01/19/lisp-is-poetry-and-most-programmers-want-prose/ <comment><USER2> Fascinating. This post illustrates precisely what -- in my opinion -- is the attitude that makes someone a Blub programmer. That's what Paul Graham was originally talking about: people who learn and develop their skills as programmers up to a certain point and then say "That's enough, I'm comfortable."

Don't get me wrong, you can get to be a _damn good_ Blub programmer. You can also work at an international company, headquartered in US, without being skilled enough at English to appreciate Shakespeare's work; or, for that matter, loathe it, since you need the same level of proficiency.

I do believe that you'll never get to enjoy English to the fullest, if you don't explore its poetic reaches. In words of Wilhelm von Humboldt:

 _The diversity of languages is not a diversity of signs and sounds but a diversity of views of the world._

I believe that the same applies to programming languages. Yes, you can be really good with just Java. But just by learning C# on the side, you can gain valuable insights without stepping too far from your comfort zone. Learning Lisp, Self, Python and Factor, to name a few, will give you whole new worldviews, make you think differently. You don't really need that stuff to make software (or money). But it can make you a hell of a lot better at it and, more importantly, it can make you enjoy it more.

<comment><USER3> Most of the devs I encounter recently are at least curious about different families of language

\- ruby or python (GTD lang's)

\- java, C and derivatives

\- concurrent/FP: ocaml, clojure, scala, haskell, clean, erlang, F#

\- lisp/scheme, dylan

\- smalltalk, factor, Ioke, forth,

Fortunately, you can spend all weekend reading about languages:

\- hacker news; reddit; infoq.com; artima.com; theServerside.com and .net; Lambda the Ultimate

<comment><USER4> > smalltalk, factor, Ioke, forth,

This is an unexpected grouping; the design philosophies of Factor and Forth seem quite different from those of Smalltalk, which in turn I think is only one of the points of inspiration for Ioke. Is there some deeper similarity that you're pointing out here?

<comment><USER5> Not to mention how close are Smalltalk and Ruby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "LISP is worth learning for a different reason — the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it. That experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use LISP itself a lot." -- Eric Raymond (How to become a Hacker).

I wonder what percentage of people who "get Lisp" manage to stay happy working in other languages.

<comment><USER7> Well a lot i would say.

Peter norvig for starters ? I would say me if i mattered ;)

<comment><USER6> I'll accept your own experience, and am happy for you. As for how Mr. Norvig's coping -- let's wait for him to post his own.

I could see a language designer (say someone like Guy Steele) who has made major contributions in Lisp happily moving on to his or her next research interest, pursuing a completely new design. Those of us stuck in the "real world" of trying to make a living with our software skills are a different matter.

In my experience, once having worked with Lisp I found it extremely difficult to switch to programming in Java. I spent a lot of time trying to make Java look like Lisp, which in my opinion made my code more readable, but to other programmers I worked with - not so much. My point is, Lisp can be a mind altering experience, much like LSD (I suppose). Some have the ability to compartmentalize the experience and move on with other pursuits and some are forever hooked on the "forbitten" fruit.

<comment><USER8> I think it depends on your trajectory. I did BASIC then 6502 assembly language then C. Then a few other languages before spending considerable time in Lisp/Scheme, and then Haskell.

Much like the author of the posting, I find some elegance in Lisp, but I've never been comfortable with it. While I can code anything I've ever felt the need to do with it, it would rarely be my first choice language. And especially with respect to performance -- I find myself having to spend a lot more time at the whiteboard ensuring that what I'm doing isn't too computationally expensive with Lisp. I just don't have nearly the same sense of cost with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What a case of assuming your conclusion. If Lisp is poetry, and poetry is beautiful-but-archaic-language-completely-divorced-from-ordinary-human- communication, well then obviously Lisp is for a tiny minority who like to speak Elizabethan; meanwhile the much larger population of _practical_ people will simply prefer to _get things done_ in vernacular.

It's nonsense, of course. If Lisp weren't good for getting things done, I for one wouldn't bother with it. But having assumed his conclusion in the first three words of the second paragraph, the author need offer no argument, and doesn't. In fact he doesn't even mention Lisp after that.

</comment><comment><USER10> Say what you will about pg's writing. But he's been involved in the funding of _plenty_ of startups that didn't write Lisp code. I think you should pay attention to where his money is going before you read too much into his essays.

</comment><comment><USER11> "I am much more impressed by the genius of the finished product rather than the expressive beauty of its implementation. "

Sridhar's whole argument hinges on this dichotomy between choosing great tools and having a great finished product.

It is a false dichotomy - In some situations you don't have to choose one to the exclusion of the other. You can have both, especially in startups (PG specifically mentions startups in his essay, as a context to where powerful languages would be effective). Use AND instead of XOR and this post falls apart.

If you start with the intention of building a finished product with "genius", it might help to look for the best tools to build that genius product with, which would _also_ give you expressive beauty (and effectiveness). Again AND, not XOR. Sure you could end up with a beautiful creation using crude tools, but why would you want to _if_ you have a choice of tools??

Extremist positions about a largely artificial choice between great tools and great end-product aren't very convincing. I don't buy this argument anymore than I buy the "I am cooler than you because I write in lisp and you write in C" argument.

From Sridhar's post

 _"I bet that the vast majority of the world's programmers, want an "easy" language, not a highly expressive, poetic language Contrast this view with Paul Graham's Hackers & Painters."_

Interesting rhetorical device(again) but there isn't as much of a conflict between their views. There isn't a conflict between "easy" and "poetic". The same language can be used to produce works which are either, neither or both, with all sorts of intermediate positions and shading.

From Pg's essay

 _"Part of what software has to do is explain itself. So to write good software you have to understand how little users understand. They're going to walk up to the software with no preparation, and it had better do what they guess it will, because they're not going to read the manual. The best system I've ever seen in this respect was the original Macintosh, in 1985. It did what software almost never does: it just worked. [6]

Source code, too, should explain itself. If I could get people to remember just one quote about programming, it would be the one at the beginning of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.

Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.

You need to have empathy not just for your users, but for your readers. It's in your interest, because you'll be one of them. Many a hacker has written a program only to find on returning to it six months later that he has no idea how it works. I know several people who've sworn off Perl after such experiences."_

Software should make sense to both users _and_ other programmers? Oh horror, PG does seem to be focusing on the end result after all.

Now PG _also_ seems to imply that _in some contexts_ (startups with a few skilled hackers competing with larger companies with not so killed hackers, say) choosing powerful languages (or generally "running upstairs") would get you to the desired endpoint faster/with less resources etc. Debating that point is fine. Mischaracterizing it isn't.

The problem again seems to be the artificial divide between "simple and easy" vs "poetic "(and by implication NOT simple and easy). The only real argument offered for this dichotomy seems to be based on his personal experience in learning two languages. One learning experience seems to have focused on learning with simple sentences and the the other on learning via/with classical poetry.

If the two languages (and teaching styles) were interchanged, so if you learn English by/with analysing Tudor poetry and Tamil by learning conversational and practically useful sentences, I suspect you would find the latter easier.

That doesn't say much about which language is intrinsically better for a given purpose in a given context.

English can be taught simply or in a complicated manner. So can Tamil. You can read/write complex, layered poetry in both, which are nearly untranslatable into the other. You can write simple , clear prose in both.

 _"After all, if you are doing wireless communications systems simulation [as I was] or writing a web word processor [as we are], what matters is the particular domain, and the language in which it is developed is not the most important issue. "_

But _no one_ (least of all PG) ever claimed it was the _most_ important issue, taking precedence _over_ domain. But it is _an_ important issue.

A programmer who didn't care _at all_ about his tools and didn't have clear preferences, not only about programming languages, but also about other tools like Editors, Version Control Systems etc is hardly a professional. A preference need not be absolute and fanatic. Use AND when you can and XOR only when you have to.

A web word processor can be written with Clojure or Python (say) and JavaScript or with (say) PHP and JavaScript.[1]

Given that choice, I'd expect good developers to _tend_ to one choice over the other _if_ they had the choice (Once you have a large enough base of legacy code/a large enough company, often you don't have that choice).

My nutshell reaction: Bleh what a terrible post. It hardly holds together in any logical fashion or says anything insightful.

[1](Here I am using the same rhetorical device of setting up two arbitrary extremes and forcing a choice - Domain XOR Powerful languages, Clojure XOR PHP. In the real world you could used Clojure, JavaScript _and_ some PHP, or none of these etc, but then how would we argue about irrelevancies? ;-)) .

<comment><USER12> _It is a false dichotomy._

Perhaps, but in practice communities centered around more esoteric languages seem to spend more time working on elegant hacks and self-referential tools than on producing working, useful products. I met a lot of very smart hackers when I was still seriously doing Common Lisp coding but none of them could show me anything actually _useful_ they'd done with it, although they had a lot of very clever tricks up their sleeves.

For example, package management in Common Lisp was a mess. There were three or four completely incompatible systems in use and none of them were really polished enough to depend on. I was astonished at how quickly the Ruby community implemented and rallied around a single, simple, usable package manager, because I'd previously just assumed it was a hard problem to solve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is getting stupid. People program real, working things in Lisp. People program real, working things in languages that aren't Lisp.

 _Grow up_.</comment>


Ibrahim Balic: I have over 100K Apple developers's user details - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/22/ibrahim-balic-i-hacked-apples-developer-website-and-have-over-100k-developers-user-details/

<comment><USER2> Speculation - Did he mean that he believes that he could have accessed 100K users' details rather than that he had accessed (or certainly copied them)?

It is the only explanation that makes sense to me when he talks about only having accessed 73 employee's details.</comment>


iOS Is For Revenue, Android is For Ads - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ayoomojola/2013/09/26/ios-is-for-revenue-android-is-for-ads/

<comment><USER2> Should be renamed "iOS Is For Rich People, Android Is For The Poor."

<comment><AUTHOR> I pondered this, but I don't think it's that simple. Economic demographics are a part of the story, but I think the underlying architecture of each really is a lot of the difference. By the time you activate your iPhone for the first time, you've already given your credit card to Apple. Most users of Google products, by contrast, _do not ever give Google their payment information_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Simply _horrible_ noise.

I would love HN provided a way for one to click "forever more ignore the votes of everyone who voted this nonsense up" for such prattle.

This particular article (not by Forbes, it should be mentioned. This is yet another contributor article, which is effectively the everyman blog platform that Forbes uses to piss all of their credibility away, yet it is surprisingly effective at getting to the front page of HN) is a sea of link farming, and is one of the most egregious example I've yet seen (many of the seeming citations go to absolutely nothing of the sort. It is just dozens of links to Hipmob).

Oh but iOS users buy more tea, so there's that. What?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there - OP here. Sorry you feel this way.

I spend several hours a week talking to our customers and interviewing the people who run mobile for large retailers, as well as mobile startup founders. The opinion I stated is definitely mine, and it's a logical conclusion based on the data gleaned from my interviews and informal/off the record conversations with people whose business it is to sell real products (hotel rooms, shoes, shirts) every single day via mobile apps.

People simply don't transact on Android - thats not an opinion. That's data. Happy to discuss more/share more off the record if it suits you, and if you know someone who is successfully selling products to Android customers, I'd love to talk to them because they know a secret that literally every ecommerce company in America is DYING to know.

As to the dozens of links to Hipmob - that's where we publish our interviews and it's the original source of our content. Believe me, if we could publish elsewhere, we would, but its the sort of content that only customers/potential customers of ours find interesting, and as such we make it available to them on our blog.

Hope that helps explain things.</comment></comment>


Tell/Ask HN: Design for Coders - <AUTHOR>

We are a UI design / usability group starting to produce a weekly blog series on design for coders/programmers. We've learned so much from HN over time (yes, we lurked) and we want to teach a bit in return.
It seems there's always common themes that cycle through the submissions every few weeks, most of which we aren't qualified to offer any advice on ("Which language is SUPER easy to start programming in?","Ruby > PHP ... Right?" or "Stop Talking About Appl.... Ooops!"). Another common theme is questions related to design ("What makes good design?", "Where can I learn more about good design?" or "Where do I go to find a good designer?"). That's the one we might be able to help you with. We've got a few topics lined up and of course we can come up with ideas all by ourselves, but we want to know what YOU want to know about design. What confuses you? What does there seem to be a lack of information on?
As for the series, we'll start it up next week and post weekly. Our goal is 5-10 minute articles with examples and links to additional resources that are easy to understand. Our first planned topics are Space/Simplicity, Color & Typography. We won't be creating comprehensive resources to cover every topic comprehensively and overwhelm you but we'll be on hand to respond, interact and clarify. Happy 4th of July! <comment><AUTHOR> Click-able link: <http://blog.theminimgroup.com/> \- No, there's nothing fun there yet.

RSS: <http://blog.theminimgroup.com/feed></comment>


The Cache and Multithreading - <AUTHOR> http://austingwalters.com/the-cache-and-multithreading/

<comment><USER2> The first 2 examples are not dividing the work between the threads, but having each of the threads repeat the full work, which is not poor OpenMP use, but wrong use. I would have also used the collapse directive and played a little bit with the schedule. Finally, looping in the inner loop through the first index is not a good idea not only when working with OpenMP.

</comment><comment><USER3> Comment on the blog that got deleted:

I did a similar test in C and have gotten very similar results. When N is around 4000 the trashing version starts to differ substantially. A 3x difference can already be seen when N is 1000.

 _This means if your program is running on two threads over different parts of the matrix, every single iteration requires a request to RAM._

I'm skeptical over this part, I have tried to replicate this behavior but was unsuccessful. Even though cores are sharing L3, I doubt that a thread will overwrite the entire cache on every iteration.

<comment><USER4> Author here, I have to manually approve comments, and did not delete this one (way too much spam not to do so), sorry. Different compilers and architecture will have different results, I explained that in a previous post.

Either way, you should see a noticeable difference as the size increases, which was the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For all those interested in this subject, I'd like to recommend Nitsan Wakart's blog, [http://psy-lob-saw.blogspot.com/](http://psy-lob- saw.blogspot.com/), which is dedicated to mechanical sympathy relating to concurrency and the memory system.

<comment><USER6> And, of course, the Mechanical Sympathy blog itself:

[http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.com](http://mechanical- sympathy.blogspot.com)</comment></comment>


All 44 Blackboard Patent Claims Invalidated - <AUTHOR> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/03/29/0346212.shtml <comment><USER2> What are the blackboard patents? It doesn't say in the slashdot post, nor in the article the slashdot post links to.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't seem to find an overview of all of them, but here are the ones Blackboard said they wouldn't enforce against pure open source software. <http://www.blackboard.com/patent/FAQ_013107.htm>

I believe that their patents together meant that any commercial Blackboard- like software was infringing on their IP. This is a list of companies that were probably infringing on Blackboard's fortunately invalid patents. [http://www.mfeldstein.com/the_blackboard_patent_claims_in_pl...](http://www.mfeldstein.com/the_blackboard_patent_claims_in_plain_english/) [http://www.google.com/patents?id=RX94AAAAEBAJ&dq=6,988,1...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=RX94AAAAEBAJ&dq=6,988,138) That's their first and biggest one and it's obscene.</comment></comment>


Breaking Down Memory Walls - <AUTHOR> http://www.blosc.org/posts/breaking-memory-walls/ <comment><USER2> The interesting part about this presentation (for someone like me who isn't familiar with Blosc) is the chart for the AMD EPYC processor showing faster overall performance with compressed data. This is a surprisingly rare result to actually see in a realistic benchmark. You need both very fast decompression, and a (commensurately) large number of cores.

The more common tradeoff is that compression allows you to keep more data in RAM, which gives you a speedup compared to keeping (say) 1/4 the data in RAM and 3/4 on disk. But in the luxurious case that you sufficient RAM to fit all your data, it's usually faster to skip the compression and accept the memory bottleneck.

While the theory of getting faster results with compressed data is easy, this is one of the first real world examples that shows it actually happening (albeit on only one of the processors the tested). More common for benchmarks is the case shown in the full PDF, which shows that on easily compressible synthetic data the compression is an easier (though still not easy) win.

Nice work!

</comment><comment><USER3> TLDR: testing on-the-fly memory (de)compression on contagious memory benchmarks</comment>