Startup advice - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/startup-advice <comment><USER2> There is some good stuff in there, but also a number of tautologies and platitudes, e.g.

"Make something people want."

This is a great sound bite, but it's not really actionable advice. Same as "don't die" or "get lucky." If you start a company unaware that you need to make something someone will want, you have no business doing so.

Furthermore, it's absolutely nontrivial to start out making something people want. A better piece of advice (still flawed) would be: develop a process to make sure you don't deviate from building something people want, and/or converge towards something people want. You can always rewrite history (e.g. Twitter, Google) and make it look like you always knew that you were building something people wanted. In reality, Google tried to sell itself to Yahoo for $1M in 1999 (and Yahoo said no). Those of us who were around at the time remember this.

I find it very dangerous to "tweet-wrap" advice that is the result of long slogs, and requires context. "Don't die" or "get lucky" sort of make sense if you know the back story. Otherwise you might as well say things like "grow wings" or "remember you always have a friend in the diamond business."

<comment><USER3> _"If you start a company unaware that you need to make something someone will want, you have no business doing so."_

Well, yes. That being said, as with many cliches, this one's a cliche for a reason. You'd be surprised how many entrepreneurs set out to make a cool product _first_ , and a solution _second_. It's surprisingly easy to build a product -- even a beautiful, elegant, simple one -- that just doesn't solve or do anything useful for anyone in particular. It's very easy to mistake elegance, qua elegance, for utility. Elegance doesn't necessarily imply utility, but many fall into that trap.

The mantra "Make something people want" is better expressed as "Make something useful." Or, perhaps, "Make something that solves a need." Don't build a hammer and then go looking for nails.

The rest of your post ("Furthermore..." onward), I completely agree with.

<comment><USER4> What? You mean that solutions are more wanted than cool products?

The problem with the saying is it doesn't address that obvious misunderstanding, which is why I propose changing it to "Make something useful."

<comment><USER3> _"What? You mean that solutions are more wanted than cool products?"_

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that "cool" is relative to the customer's needs. There is no such thing as an objectively cool or objectively interesting product. It is the _user_ who determines whether something is cool/wanted, and the coolness/need is determined by the degree to which the product solves something.

I'm not using the word "solution" in the sense of B2B jargon. I'm using it in the sense that you have a Need, and you have a Fulfillment/Resolution of that Need. The need could be trivial, or it could be major. It could be for business utility or for personal entertainment. It could be a need you didn't know you had, or a need you had but weren't totally cognizant of until the solution articulated (and solved) it. Or it could be a need that's been plain and aching for a long time.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, I am afraid the expression of agreement couched in sarcastic opposition didn't come across very well.

We are in agreement here.

The only possible disagreement is whether focusing on what people "want" is a useful metric. People may think things are cool. The better view in my sense is to focus on what people find useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> (Bracing myself for downvotes here)

I think the start-up community sometimes feels more like a self-help community than a bunch of cool dudes (and girls, occasionally) building cool shit. There's no secret to success and these kinds of lists are both trivial and highly tautological (sometimes even wrong, but plenty of people are posting about that).

 _Come up with an idea you think is good. Implement it. Get people to use it. Pay attention to feedback._ There's nothing mythical about being successful. Sometimes, it's nice to get lucky, and many (many) times, you will fail. Go back to Step 1.

I'm only reading the OP because I'm at work, but if I were at home working on my "next big thing," the time spent would be much better invested opening up Eclipse or Notepad++.

Go ahead, downvote me. But after that, close HN and get back to work!

<comment><USER6> > (Bracing myself for downvotes here)

Not referring to you specifically (this is likely a case of Hanlon's Razor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor>), but this is a common tactic for soliciting sympathy upvotes -- "fishing for compliments" as it goes. It's about as bad as "upvote if you like X, downvote if you like Hitler" or "Does anyone else Y" style posts.

Given the contrarian nature of HN comments, _disagreeing with the OP is typically quite safe_. If your comment fits the mold of "stereotypical top comment on HN" then it's hard to believe that you're bracing for downvotes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "28. Keep salaries low and equity high."

"Don't pay people a fair salary; instead, offer them bespoke lunches catered by the finest local delis, a bus pass, and the promise of an amount of equity ultimately so trivial that even if the company sells for a couple hundred million, they still won't be a millionaire after all the taxing is said and done."

<comment><AUTHOR> You should not join a startup as an early employee (with a correspondingly low salary) for an equity position that will not make you a post-tax millionaire in a 200MM exit.

<comment><USER8> Without a face in the boardroom, how do you stop yourself from being diluted out to nil?

<comment><AUTHOR> This usually only happens if the company is failing, in which case your stock is close to worthless anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Tons of good ones mixed in with the platitudes. Here are some favorite quips from other people that I've saved:

"Sell before you build" - Paul Nuchheit

"Be a cockroach, impossible to kill"

"Do stuff that doesn't scale"

"Launch early"

Ask "five why's" to get to the root of what customers want. Usually, it will reveal "they want simplicity."

"don't sacrifice the WHY in the process of speeding up the WHAT and HOW" - Hunter Walk

"To achieve great things, two things are needed - a plan and not quite enough time" - Leonard Bernstein

"The only people who see the whole picture are the ones who step out of the frame." - Salman Rushdie

</comment><comment><USER10> Now working on <http://www.thinkful.com/> this one stands out as spot on and often ignored:

10\. Growth solves (nearly) all problems.

I'm amazed at the number of people who don't understand the difference between improving conversion of people already on your website and driving new users _to_ your site.

While this one is spot on for team members, and opposite when finding investors:

19\. Generally, value aptitude over experience.

<comment><USER11> Presumably because for investors, aptitude is invariably acquired through experience.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. Specifically because deep understanding of what works, what doesn't and connections are the drivers of strategy.

Aptitude is crucial for execution, but that's not the VC's job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > 28\. Keep salaries low and equity high. > 94\. Have a table in your offer > letters that shows how much the stock you're granting a new hire could be > worth in various scenarios.

Notwithstanding the point that trying to predict what stock options _could_ be worth is generally a pointless exercise at early-stage startups and may not be advisable from a legal standpoint, if you really believe the best case figures you're likely to show or want to show in such a table, you would almost always have an incentive to _minimize_ the amount of equity doled out.

A company that _prefers_ to treat equity as an immediate substitute for salary either a) believes that its equity is cheap, b) is cash constrained or c) has concerns about its cash position going forward. These are all red flags for someone considering joining the company as an employee.

<comment><USER4> This is true, but if I was going to be employee 3 or 4 for a startup that wasn't concerned about cash position going forward, that would be a red flag too.

<comment><USER12> There's a difference between having _concerns_ about cash position and managing burn wisely.

Nothing is guaranteed at a startup and early employees should assume the risk that the money will eventually run out is high. But even so, a company that would prefer to _minimize_ the cash part of your compensation and _maximize_ the equity portion should be looked at with extreme skepticism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Things that stuck out (I have a very different vantage point from Sam Altman, so, grain of salt):

 _7\. In general, don't start a startup you're not willing to work on for ten years._

Best piece of advice he gave, and I think more important than "built something people want" (both are important).

 _13\. Overcommunicate with your team. For some reason most founders are really bad at this one. Transparency is your friend._

Yes, but so hard to get this right. Start this early. Things you get in the habit of holding close to the m-team will probably stay with the m-team forever. This is something that's worth to spend mental energy on early, even though it won't matter until you're bigger, because it's so hard to do once you're bigger.

 _15\. Hire slow; fire fast. Hiring is the most important thing you do; spend at least a third of your time on it._

People say this all the time and I don't believe it really works; I thought we're be a fire-fast company when we started but discovered it's hard to be fire-fast and not sociopathic. Don't count on being fire-fast unless you're sure you can do it (for instance, because you've done it before). Weight hiring decisions that much more.

 _16\. Occasionally think about why the 20th person will join your company._

A great question, since we've been doing that for awhile, and answering it has motivated changes in how we approach the management of the company. Asking this question constantly will help your culture.

 _18\. Hire friends and friends of friends. Go after these people like crazy to get them to join. Some other candidate sources are ok, but I always got bad results from technical recruiters._

I think this seems true because all the conventional hiring vectors suck so badly. Have a better plan for hiring than "friends of friends". There is really no reason to believe that you are so central to the talent graph that your friends of friends are going to be great. What makes this worse is that relationships will queer the readings you get during your hiring process; you'll want people to work out.

If your hiring process is fun for the interviewers, it's probably a bad hiring process.

 _19\. Generally, value aptitude over experience._

1000x this; this is our hiring thesis.

 _20\. Hire people that you could describe as animals._

I don't know what this means but if I look at our top performers I would not uniformly describe them as animals. Beware irrational criteria.

 _28\. Keep salaries low and equity high._

This is probably vitally important for the kind of company YC starts but consider businesses that won't require you to do this, because retention is very very hard too.

 _33\. Journalists like hearing directly from founders. If you hire PR people, resist their desire to control all the contact._

Be suspicious of ideas that require you to have a PR plan.

 _44\. Get on planes in marginal situations. In-person is still better than tele-anything._

This is true and also can be usefully flipped, ie on investors or partners; someone who is serious about doing a deal with you will get on a plane, or, simpler, can be induced to take a call on a Saturday afternoon.

 _57\. Celebrate your wins as a company. Get t-shirts for big milestones._

Something I learned at the largest company I worked for was that it's often valuable to brand milestones in advance. People can use the brand as a shorthand. Often had the effect of assumptively closing on management buy-in; once you had the manager using the branding name for the project, they were automatically sold on the project.

 _60\. Meetups and conferences are generally a waste of time._

Yes.

 _63\. Be suspicious of any work that is not building product or getting customers. It's easy to get sucked into an infrastructure rewrite death spiral._

Yes.

 _68\. Don't have a diverse culture in the early days._

Probably no.

 _71\. On the really bad days, remember that tomorrow will be better—it's hard to see it being much worse!_

Since I see people asking how to find cofounders so often, here I'd like to add: you know you have good cofounders when things are going wrong for you, the world seems like it's falling apart, and you suddenly realize with great relief that there are more people who will have to melt down before anything bad happens in the company. Can you imagine feeling that way about a prospective cofounder?

This is why I think the cofounder matching sites are kind of silly. But I guess if it works for dating...

 _94\. Have a table in your offer letters that shows how much the stock you're granting a new hire could be worth in various scenarios._

This sounds like a really up-front way to handle that. I think you should offer less equity and more salary, though.

This was a great list. Thanks, Sam Altman.

<comment><USER14> _7\. In general, don't start a startup you're not willing to work on for ten years.

Best piece of advice he gave, and I think more important than "built something people want" (both are important)._

But did he take the advise himself with Loopt..?

<comment><USER15> He ran it for 7 years before being acquired, and is still working on it at Green Dot. I would consider that taking his own advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think he missed some:

96\. Stay out of jail.

97\. You may feel you lack the time to defecate, but this is generally not something you can wait until after your big exit to do.

98\. You are a special snowflake. Act like it.

<comment><USER17> I could have used "don't have a business partner that goes to jail" at one point in my life. Or "don't have a business partner with undisclosed IRS issues from his last business". I am no longer partners with anyone, and I do not believe a person needs a co-founder.

I may have some bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> 40 is the one that sticks out most to me.

"Don't let your company be run by a sales guy. But do learn how to sell your product."

But for me it hits a little closer to home, I saw first hand how this could be a very bad situation and its a mistake I won't make again.

Founders should be product people in some way, that does not necessarily mean they need to BUILD the product, but they should definitely be more than just a "Sales" person

</comment><comment><USER19> Always try to think of alternative ways to sell/market your product. How products are sold in any market is defined by incumbents; to get through them, and stand out, you will always have to go a different route.

Don't rely on the press to sell your product; it is almost always unsustainable.

</comment><comment><USER20> its all time pass, too many points to even bother reading. There are soo many thing involved in starting a business you just can't sum up things like that. Its just dumb. Every business is different and so is every person.

</comment><comment><USER21> Should this be read in numeric order (as 1 being the most important, etc.)? If not, which would you say are the top 3 most important?

In other words, how would you advise a startup CEO/founder manage their time in a big picture sense?

<comment><USER22> 1) realize that there is no 3 point list to success

2) ???

3) profit!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> 81\. Surf someone else's wave.

Following this advice only gets you dependent on that someone (if I understood the point correctly). So if they go down (read: limit/lock their API, like Twitter did), you go too.

<comment><USER24> I believe this one came from McAdoo's talk at Startup school. The context was that you want to pick a market that's growing, instead of trying to create the market yourself. Then you have both the problem of building your company, and educating potential users. I think this is one of those pieces of advice that resonate more to those that managed to build something people want, but found that they were a big fish in a small pond.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> _50\. You can create value with breakthrough innovation, incremental refinement, or complex coordination._

How can complex coordination create value? An example, perhaps?

<comment><USER26> I would guess that Uber is a good example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hadn't heard the vitamin/painkiller analogy before, and that's a trap I've definitely fallen into. Great list!

<comment><USER9> yo Eric, check out some of Nir Eyal's talks <http://vimeo.com/63534588>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Perhaps a better title would be 'Startup Aphorisms' :-) But generally some solid stuff. I'm alway a big fan of fearing complexity, if you can't understand it how do you know its working? How can anyone outside your company understand it? And when it breaks your screwed.

</comment><comment><USER29> What does "Schleps are good" mean?

<comment><USER30> Read "Schlep Blindness" from PG[1].

[1] <http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> "Hire people that you could describe as animals." - who the f __k is this guy?

<comment><USER32> That guy? Paul Graham.

From <http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html> -

 _What do I mean by good people? One of the best tricks I learned during our startup was a rule for deciding who to hire. Could you describe the person as an animal? It might be hard to translate that into another language, but I think everyone in the US knows what it means. It means someone who takes their work a little too seriously; someone who does what they do so well that they pass right through professional and cross over into obsessive._

Something got lost in that one sentence synopsis. He wasn't suggesting that you dehumanize your employees by literally thinking of them as animals.

<comment><USER33> What is he talking about? He isn't talking about a saying like "stubborn as a mule", is he?

<comment><USER34> He is saying disregard personal hygiene deficiencies.

<comment><USER35> Likely he means, "totally committed, focused and in the moment", like a party animal, and without existential doubts about being in your startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> _"9. In the current pivot-happy world, good ideas are underweight. It's worth the time to think through a good one."_

I really didn't understand this one - mainly the first sentence. Can anyone (sama?) elaborate?

<comment><USER37> People bounce from one idea to the next without exploring an idea deeply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> > 18\. Hire friends and friends of friends.

With "friend := someone whom you personally know for sure to be a able worker"

> 57\. Celebrate your wins as a company. Get t-shirts for big milestones.

If you insist on making your employees cringe ...

</comment><comment><USER39> Keep in mind that a lot of this is why it's pretty shitty to _work_ for a startup, as opposed to another smaller business.

Examples:

1\. Hire slow; fire fast.

If you screw up, you're gone. So much for job security.

17\. Hire smart and effective people that are committed to what you're doing. The last five words there are important.

You're ideas aren't important unless they echo ours, so please, don't rock the boat. kthx. See #1.

20\. Hire people that you could describe as animals.

i.e, hire people that are willing to join your cult and have no outside interests. They'll wear the scars of your whipping as badges of honour.

28\. Keep salaries low and equity high.

While you're at it, just post "Fuck you" on your door too... they should want to join you just based on the promise of winning the lottery and because they are generally young and ignorant. See #20.

I'm being hyperbolic and a little unfair in my criticism in an effort to make a point - working for a startup has all of the downsides and none of the upsides of founding a startup.

People quickly wise up to this, which is usually why not many people with families and such commit to the "startup lifestyle". That isn't to say that they avoid startups completely, just that they avoid the ones that treat their employees more like machines than people.

You can avoid all this by just doing the opposite of these points in many cases:

1\. Hire slow, Fire slow

Let people screw up. Trust your hiring process. If they were so great on day one, why are you looking to fire them? Why don't you ask them what's changed? (Note, this doesn't mean never to part ways with anyone)

17\. Hire smart and effective people that are committed to what you're doing.

No need to emphasize the obvious. Embrace your employees, and their life changes. Embrace the fact that their thoughts, feelings, desires change as yours do. Work with them, within reason, as much as possible. After all, considering you hired friends of friends, this is your social network you're talking about.

20\. Hire people that you could describe as animals.

Let people be. Your number one expense should not be high blood pressure medication. Sure, you need the tigers, but you also need people to keep you grounded. Nobody would suggest only hiring men, or only hiring people that play soccer. Don't hire people that only 100% drive. These people (myself included) also have a tendency to slip into pure assholedome. You need more than a bunch of assholes.

28\. Keep salaries low and equity high.

I think this is self explanatory. Don't exploit people if you don't want to deal with "firing fast" every second month. Your employees have tremendous risk in joining a new, unproven startup with little to no income. They should receive a salary that reflects this, unless you're partnering with them and bringing them on as part of ownership.

</comment><comment><USER40> Haha about the "20. Hire people that you could describe as animals.". Without context it looks a bit silly.

"Yeah, this guy is totally a zebra. Oh, that programmer over there is such a squirrel".

Great advises, thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER41> This is an awesome list. Learned this one the hard way:

<i>Pay a lot of attention to the relationship between cofounders, especially if both/all of you want to be CEO.</i>

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen 95 theses, huh? Like Martin Luther?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses>

</comment><comment><USER42> Btw, whatever happened to loopt? Don't hear much about it nowadays. The website is taking forever to load.

<comment><USER43> It was acquired by Green Dot last year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> _75\. Give your investors something to do._

sama can you clarify - as you could take it a couple ways

<comment><AUTHOR> Most investors can really help with at least one thing, and if they're busy with that, they won't muck around in other things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Most important part omitted is how to do #1. Customer discovery, learning key.

</comment><comment><USER46> Does anyone know if 94. is standard practice or not?

</comment><comment><USER47> Finally, a really good list of this sort of advice.

</comment><comment><USER48> "22. Don't die."

aka "Don't YOLO"

<comment><USER35> Likely pg means, "don't let your startup die aka run out of cash and/or have the founders lose interest."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone use "I'm Feeling Lucky" on Google? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Never used it, except for the easter egg with Chuck Norris etc. Actually I was about to try and noticed that I can't click the button, as Google starts the search as soon as I start typing in ...

</comment><comment><USER3> Irrelevant, as I don't have feelings.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't, ever.</comment>


A Defer Statement for C - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/moon-chilled/Defer <comment><USER2> Sounds like you're trying to emulate the "cleanup" GCC variable attribute:

[https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Variable- Attribute...](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Variable- Attributes.html)

Example use: [https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/lib/frr_pthread...](https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/lib/frr_pthread.h#L218-L264)

(FRR requires a GCC/clang compatible compiler, so no fallback/workaround.)

<comment><USER3> GCC attribute cleanup is so much harder to misuse than some hodgepodge macro construction like this. If you're a C developer, it is by far the superior option. Clang supports it, of course.

<comment><USER4> It's also used in several important big Linux programs so it's unlikely to be going away. There have been efforts to get the mechanism added to the next C standard too.

<comment><USER3> Re: going away — has GCC ever removed any relatively common attribute in the past? They basically don't ever, to my knowledge. They haven't removed nested functions, for example, which would probably be a good idea. (To your point, though: important Linux programs like GRUB use nested functions.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Moving to C++ seems wiser than using a dubious hack like this.

<comment><USER6> I wrote on reddit[1] about why I prefer this over c++:

> It's not a technical problem, but a social problem. Yes, I would definitely > prefer the c++ RAII (and refcounts would be nice too). If you say 'my > project is in c++', that sends a certain message to prospective > contributors, about what your priorities and ideals are. It can attract > certain kinds of contributors and discourage others. Then you have the > problem of how to define your subset of c++. It's easy to say 'no > exceptions, no RTTI, no STL'. But there are subtler things. As you mention, > templates are occasionally useful. But sometimes they're completely > superfluous. Do you allow virtual functions? Multiple inheritance? The > answer is almost invariably 'maybe'; you have to exercise _taste_. I can do > that by myself, for my own project. But if I want to be able to accept > contributions from others, I need a clearer set of contribution guidelines > than 'wherever my whimsy takes me', and for such a purpose 'whatever the c > compiler accepts' is the best I can do.

> Also, tcc is about 10x faster than gcc and clang, which makes development a > joy.

1: [https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/f4gb6n/i_made_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/f4gb6n/i_made_defer_for_c/fhqo14q/)

<comment><USER7> > Then you have the problem of how to define your subset of c++. It's easy to > say 'no exceptions, no RTTI, no STL'.

how about you just don't do that like 99% of modern C++ projects and just accept "whatever the C++ compiler accepts".

Remember that "whatever the C compiler accepts" covers most of IOCCC too.

<comment><USER8> Because the C++ compiler accepts an absolutely insane variety of code styles. I say this as someone who mainly writes C++. If I write my own project, or a project where I only have to work with a small number of people all of whom I know have extensive C++ experience, or a project that is so large that I can afford to consistently rewrite parts, educate contributors and maintain style guides, I choose C++. But anything that doesn't hit these bells, I'd rather use C (or something else). People mixing completely different styles in C++ is a nightmare.

<comment><USER7> > People mixing completely different styles in C++ is a nightmare.

This is really not my experience. Any decent-sized program will have parts more in a functional style, others in a more OOP one, others in regular-typed Stepanov bliss, others in template or constexpr metaprograms.... and this causes zero issues in practice once people get past their assumptions about what clean code should look like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is one I put together a while back for gcc and clang: [https://github.com/jeffwalter/defer/](https://github.com/jeffwalter/defer/). There's no limit to the number of defers you can have. At least not one I've run into.

<comment><USER6> My version isn't as dependent on nonstandard extensions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You could use a Duff's device instead of computed labels, then you'd have a portable implementation.

<comment><USER11> That same technique is used by [https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html](https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/coroutines.html)

<comment><USER10> Yes, quite! I mentioned that and async.h in issue #1. I also opened a PR with a Duff's device version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Author of the library here; AMA.

<comment><USER4> Why not use __attribute__((cleanup))? It's widely used in real code (eg. systemd has been using it for years) and there's effort going on to get the mechanism standardized in the next C standard.

<comment><USER12> How is support across compilers? Do clang and MSVC support it?

<comment><USER3> Does MSVC support C99 yet? Much less C11 or a future C2x?

Their priority has always been C++ and for some time their stance on C was basically "I _guess_ we're willing to compile the subset of C that is valid C++."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks like you also have to use a custom return (`Return`) which is error- prone.

<comment><USER10> You can define the macro as `return` -- it won't cause infinite recursion in the C pre-processor, but you do have to either use the `Deferral` macro in every function, or `#undef return` to do a plain return.

Try it. I just did, and it works.

<comment><USER14> Problem is, other header files you might include can have inline functions in them with returns.

Defining macros with C keyword names is not such a hot idea.

<comment><USER15> It is expressly prohibited by the Standard, as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For the C++ equivalent see Boost.ScopeExit

[https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_72_0/libs/scope_exit/doc/ht...](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_72_0/libs/scope_exit/doc/html/index.html)

<comment><USER17> Or, arguably, the C++ equivalent is just the destructor. 'Defer' and 'ScopeExit' are interesting, but I'm not sure if I see the advantage over widely understood first-class language features. If you don't want to write a class just to get cleanup logic at scope exit, consider using std::unique_ptr with a custom deleter -- this construct is for managing resources in a general sense, not necessarily just memory allocation.

<comment><USER16> > arguably, the C++ equivalent is just the destructor

You'd have to define an empty class with a destructor, then instantiate the class at the appropriate place in your code. The point of Boost.ScopeExit is to handle that boilerplate for you.

> I'm not sure if I see the advantage over widely understood first-class > language features

The advantage is simply reduced boilerplate. You're right that it's 'less standard' and more likely to baffle the reader, if they're not already familiar with ScopeExit.

> consider using std::unique_ptr with a custom deleter -- this construct is > for managing resources in a general sense, not necessarily just memory > allocation

This strikes me as hijacking a memory-management facility, using it for a different purpose than its intent. That's bad for readability. I'd prefer either ScopeExit or the dummy object pattern I described.

<comment><USER8> >You'd have to define an empty class with a destructor, then instantiate the class at the appropriate place in your code. The point of Boost.ScopeExit is to handle that boilerplate for you.

I would argue that every time you want to execute something on scope exit, that essentially models a resource or lock of some kind. Which means the constructor wouldn't be empty (it would acquire the resource), and writing the class wouldn't really be "boilerplate", it would be clean design.

>This strikes me as hijacking a memory-management facility, using it for a different purpose than its intent. That's bad for readability. I'd prefer either ScopeExit or the dummy object pattern I described.

I think it is much better for readability, because it usually models the thing you want to do much more precisely. Although it is a shame that only unique_ptr is standard and not unique_handle, but you could write that yourself relatively quickly. This case doesn't just model that you want to execute something at the end of a scope, but that you have a handle to a resource that you can std::move around and that will get destroyed at the appropriate time (if you model your data correctly).

<comment><USER16> > essentially models a resource or lock of some kind

I agree that proper RAII is generally the way to go. I think of ScopeExit as being for those situations where you have to deal with C-style code. One way is to wrap the C-style code in C++ and leverage C++'s RAII. The alternative is to write C-style code yourself, but you can still use ScopeExit to ensure you didn't miss any edge-cases where cleanup is necessary (multiple points of return, exceptions, etc).

In this way, ScopeExit is for 'C++ as a better C' programming.

> This case doesn't just model that you want to execute something at the end > of a scope, but that you have a handle to a resource that you can std::move > around and that will get destroyed at the appropriate time

This is going far further down the C++ rabbit-hole than what we started with, though. If I just want to be sure that I didn't miss any places where I need to call _free_ (or similar) in my C-style code, ScopeExit is just the thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Semi-related, I built one for Tcl [0].

[0] [https://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/tcl- defer/](https://chiselapp.com/user/rkeene/repository/tcl-defer/)

</comment><comment><USER19> How does this compare to using RAII in C++ in terms of generated code?

<comment><USER16> As I mentioned in another comment, it seems almost identical to Boost.ScopeExit, [0] but with the special restriction that it causes statements to run at the point a function returns. From the article: _it does not care about lexical scopes_.

 _edit_ Looking at the implementation, it seems to use setjmp/longjmp on some platforms. Nasty. I believe Boost.ScopeExit does some macro trickery to leverage C++'s RAII, which isn't so bad.

[0] [https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_72_0/libs/scope_exit/doc/ht...](https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_72_0/libs/scope_exit/doc/html/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Uses globals. Not thread-safe in any way.

<comment><USER21> I don't think it actually does. Per the example, the `Deferral` macro instantiates local variables which are used to do the unwinding.

<comment><USER20> Oh, you're right. I missed \ at the end of definition of Deferral macro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> cool hack! idk about its usefulness in production but cool nonetheless</comment>


2,000 NHS Security Vulnerabilities Disclosed - <AUTHOR> http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2014/03/2000-nhs-security-vulnerabilities-disclosed/ <comment> grey-area It is worth pointing out that the majority of these sites do not store patient data or any privileged information, they are informational brochure type sites for surgeries to show their operning hours or specific health awareness campaigns, hence the lack of interest in centralising or updating them. They could be hacked and defaced I suppose, which wouldn't look so great for the NHS, but they won't be running on NHS servers or controlled by NHS IT. The XSS issue is a real one, and they should probably not allow subdomains of nhs.uk to be used for gp surgeries (the most likely to have terrible websites as they buy them in themselves).

Patient data is typically held in secure systems like emis etc. run by one of a few large firms which have contracts with the NHS, so not on this sort of informational website.

<comment><USER2> So if I set up a fake 'contact us' form asking for patient data on a surgery's nhs.uk domain using XSS that would be ok then?

<comment> grey-area GP sites don't typically ask for patient data (and should not, given the budget they are purchased on), they're usually sites with opening times, a few paras about the GPs etc - if they do ask for patient data it would be by giving a link to a booking system off-site typically, I'm sure you could find an exception, but most of them are fairly harmless. The sites are not exclusively https either - anyone handling patient data should be, that's also a serious flaw if you're going to start talking about sensitive data being transferred.

I'm not sure that surgeries would ever be able to adequately protect patient data on their own sites, so they mostly use externally purchased systems and the NHS provided IT for handling that (from what I know second hand from people in the NHS, I don't work there) - those are separate systems from their brochure websites, which are typically bought from and hosted at some low- budget shop which churns out WP/drupal/PHP sites for £100 a pop and would hopefully have the sense to advise surgeries never to collect private patient data on their website.

The biggest problem here is that these sites have no business being subdomains of nhs.uk, and should be on something else like gp.uk or whatever, and the NHS should make it crystal clear that no patient data touches an informational site (to patients and GPs). It's either that or they need to set up a secure CMS which all GPs/Hospitals can use for their brochure sites, but that's likely to be a big budget project and is of questionable value.

You could say the same of most hospital websites - they will not be secure as they are fire-walled from the actual patient data, and thus it is less of a priority to keep them secure. Sure it's not nice if they are hacked, but it is not as important as what happens to patient data.

<comment><USER3> _The biggest problem here to my mind is that these sites have no business being subdomains of nhs.uk, and should be on something else like gp.uk or whatever, and the NHS should make it crystal clear that no patient data touches an informational site (to patients and GPs)._

I think it's the "making crystal clear to patients" part that is important here, because if GPs don't have sufficient security and their sites are compromised, what they were supposed to do with those sites no longer matters.

The idea that there can be privileged domains like nhs.uk where unmaintained and potentially insecure sites are hosted and no-one even knows who's responsible for them is genuinely quite shocking. What next, file your tax return with izurrevenewzuncustomz.gov.uk (t/a HMRC Ltd)?

<comment> grey-area It's less shocking when you recognise that these are simply sites to tell patients when surgeries are open etc. As I said, you can say exactly the same about other informational sites too like hospitals, universities, etc:

[http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/](http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/) [http://www.cam.ac.uk/](http://www.cam.ac.uk/) [http://nyp.org/](http://nyp.org/) [http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/](http://www.highlands.state.nj.us/)

It would not surprise me to find similar vulnerabilities in all of those picked at random, given the budget they are typically run on.

I agree it's far from ideal and a situation they should sort out given these are hosted on .nhs.uk, particularly as we move more and more of our lives online, there need to be clear rules about which sites are secured and safer and which are less important.

 _However, these sites do not host patient data._

<comment><USER3> _It 's less shocking when you recognise that these are simply sites to tell patients when surgeries are open etc_

The question is, do patients realise that, or will they tend to assume that because a site is part of the privileged .nhs.uk hierarchy, it is properly run by the NHS?

The real problem here is about trust, specifically about what should or should not appear trustworthy to patients because it is or isn't really. Given the increasing moves to do things like making appointments on-line, the much- reported efforts to share sensitive health data more widely, and the ever- changing sources of information and ways to contact the NHS, it seems to me that it is long past time these issues were resolved. IMHO it has to be done properly and from the top to have sufficient credibility and enforcement.

<comment> grey-area For appointments, just as an example, I believe emis and others offer their own separate systems and apps for this and also provide hosted sites. No idea if they are more secure but that's where the important data lives, on systems like that, not on these wordpress sites. There are 2-3 that almost all gps use, not sure on hospitals.

[http://www.emis-online.com](http://www.emis-online.com)

I do agree with most of what you're saying though, and this is far from an ideal situation. Probably a central system makes most sense long term but gov seems unable (or more recently unwilling) to deliver.

<comment> vertex-four The point is that if I send you an email, claiming to be your GP, telling you about "our new appointments system", and linking to something like:

[http://yourgpwebsite.nhs.uk/some-vulnerable- page?xss=..](http://yourgpwebsite.nhs.uk/some-vulnerable-page?xss=..).

And my XSS replaces the page with something that looks like an appointments system, the average person has _no way_ of knowing that they shouldn't trust this. There's certainly none of the usual indicators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So the article focuses on out of date wordpress installations, I really think the NHS has wider security implications given the recent admission of uploading their ENTIRE patient database onto googles servers for ease of deriving statistics ... ([http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/03/nhs- england-p...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/03/nhs-england- patient-data-google-servers))

Regarding hesitation of posting the information in the blog post; the author appears to have losely followed responsible disclosure methods attempting remediation with the NHS directly before publishing the findings.

NHS, HMRC etc the information security of these organizations is lax at best, and down right horrifying, without full disclosure forcing their hand I don't see any change.

This is why full disclosure / responsible disclosure formed in the first place.

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't. I wrote a whole section on non-WordPress vulnerabilities. But, yes, patient facing sites aren't quite as critical as some of the backend stuff.

I spent the last two months trying to contact the people responsible. When I finally did, they said they wouldn't / couldn't do anything :-/

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In the 17th century, John Wilkins wrote of his reasons for full disclosure:

 _If it be feared that this Discourse may unhappily advantage others in such unlawful Courses; 'tis considerable, that it does not only teach how to deceive, but consequently also how to discover Delusions._

but even then he knew there were liability risks that go along with information security research:

 _...the chiefe experiments are of such nature, that they cannot be frequently practised, without just cause of suspicion, when it is in the Magistrates power to prevent them._

</comment><comment><USER6> Ignoring some of the obvious conversation points. As a developer I like posts like this and find them very useful.

Information like this demonstrating ways to discover exploits should be more common knowledge. I feel currently attackers have the advantage over developers. More posts like this where security is an open topic can only lead to more secure websites going forward.

</comment><comment><USER3> As an aside, it's a shame about the political snipe partway through this piece. It might have been a useful citation to give for those of us planning to write to our MPs in light of the recent disclosures, but I imagine making an overtly political statement like that would seriously damage its credibility.

<comment><USER7> So frustrating it takes this political tone. It's not helpful in the least to label the administration "corrupt" and then expect to be taken seriously. It's not a partisan problem but an institutional one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Under current U.S. law, I would be _extremely_ hesitant to publish anything like this. How different is U.K. law on the subject?

<comment><AUTHOR> The Computer Misuse Act is fairly strict - but in this case we haven't accessed anything without permission, nor altered any data.

We spoke to the overall owner of the sites and they did not object to myself or the magazine publishing this information.

<comment><USER5> _We spoke to the overall owner of the sites and they did not object to myself or the magazine publishing this information._

That's...astonishing.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're slightly less litigious this side of the pond... :-)

<comment><USER8> I'm UKian and I'm astonished. Having worked in the UK Civil Service, sounds to me the person making this decision didn't know what it meant and that it was an actual security issue. Probably they thought it was sort of idly interesting, like speculating how many office computers are still beige. Not that you were listing sites with trusted nhs.uk domains that appear to be easy to hack.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can assure you that we made it abundantly clear how bad the problem was - including sending link, screenshots, etc. Had phone calls with them where they did sound genuinely concerned.

Sadly, it didn't transform into action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are currently no financial penalties if a website is compromised as long as the data store which has PHIs (Personal Health Information) is encrypted and the encryption keys are also safe. However, any compromised NHS website would lead to bad publicity and insecurity.

<comment><USER3> _However, any compromised NHS website would lead to bad publicity and insecurity._

And horrendous scope for phishing. Who's going to think twice about entering potentially sensitive information into their GP's web site accessed via a .nhs.uk address? Not most people, I suspect.

<comment><USER10> I would guess that's an issue even without the nhs.uk address, unfortunately. American doctors' websites don't have an 'official' domain they're under, but some people send information via their local doctor's website anyway. So if you compromise the Wordpress install (and it's likely that thousands of American doctors have a vulnerable Wordpress install) you could pull in some potentially sensitive information. The main mitigating factor in the U.S. would be that so much stuff is still done on paper and over the phone that many people wouldn't visit the site in the first place.

Like the NHS, American doctors usually don't store actual patient data on the generic CMS they use for hosting the website. If they have an online "patient portal" or "billing portal" it's usually a hosted solution that goes offsite, via a third-party company that provides such services. But it's nonetheless a huge phishing opportunity. Besides a fake contact form, you could also clone the portals, replacing the links from the main site, which are supposed to go off to places like medfusion.net or eclinicalweb.com, with ones that go off to medfusion.yourdomain.net or whatever, and most people will not think twice as long as your cloned site looks vaguely similar. I mean the genuine domains sound halfway like the domains of phishing sites to begin with...

<comment><USER5> I've noticed a disturbing trend lately of physicians' office portals connecting silently to _credit reporting agencies_ and using information from there for authentication. While I applaud them for trying to reliably authenticate me when I sign in to get blood test results, it's disconcerting to be faced with questions like this:

        Which of the following cars have you NOT owned?
            - 1999 Ford Explorer
            - 2001 Toyota Tercel
            - 2008 Audi
            - 1996 Hyundai

Along with a few more questions like that one, it's a dead give-away that my doctor's office is connected to a credit reporting agency. I have seen this happening in other places as well; evidently credit reporting agencies recently got into the business of on-line identification and authentication (I&A).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The coral cache of the page seems to be working [http://shkspr.mobi.nyud.net/blog/2014/03/2000-nhs- security-v...](http://shkspr.mobi.nyud.net/blog/2014/03/2000-nhs-security- vulnerabilities-disclosed/)</comment>


The future of transport: No loopy idea - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21583588-elon-musk-electric-car-entrepreneur-and-proponent-private-colonies-mars <comment><USER2> _"... A few, presumably not Californian patriots, have even suggested that somewhere like Texas—where the bureaucracy is less stifling—might be a more feasible place to try the idea out..."_

This is a great idea. Texas has vast spaces between its cities, plenty of cheaper land, and a willingness to try grand new ideas. Four or five hyperloop routes connecting the various corners of Texas would be a monumental achievement.

<comment><USER3> > "...a willingness to try grand new ideas..."

Sure, as long as they don't involve public transport.

Texas is a big place with diverse local governments, but a lot of the state strongly frowns on public-infrastructure other than roads. On the bright side, that's changing (e.g. look at Dallas).

If it were going to happen in Texas in today's political climate, it would probably have to be 100% privately funded, and cater exclusively to the upper middle class.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. We really hate public transportation in this state. When we do finally imbibe, we usually suck at it (Houston Metro, especially Metro Rail). There has been a lot of talk about intercity-rail to connect Austin, San Antonio, DFW, Houston; but it never gets past talk. Fewer people are opposed to inter- city rail, but it still never gets anywhere.

>plenty of cheaper land,

Given the scandals around the Trans-Texas Corridor, I wouldn't bet on it. Specious use / threats of use of eminent domain, a Governor who fancies himself a land speculator. People got wind of those things and killed the project. They're even having trouble with the Keystone pipeline here, even though nearly every fool believes that since it is an oil pipeline, it must be good.

>and a willingness to try grand new ideas.

Don't bet on that either. More like a stodgy old stubbornness and a lack of empathy for anyone who has less. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is the motto these days, and the demographic that controls elections here doesn't see anything broken (except Abortion, public schools, and democrats still having the right to vote).

<comment><USER5> >>Yeah. We really hate public transportation in this state. When we do finally imbibe, we usually suck at it (Houston Metro, especially Metro Rail).

Everybody sucks at public transit when starting from scratch in the US. Our property rights and sheer land mass make it much more difficult than other countries that have figured it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this is a great idea. But considering how I have enough trouble being in a non-sealed elevator going at only a few feet per second for a few minutes, I don't think I'll be able to tolerate something like this unless they tranquilize people like me at the station.

<comment><USER7> Elevators are small. This would be much bigger. Have you been a plane at night when the window blinds were all down? The hyperloop capsules would be more like that, i.e. not so bad.</comment></comment>


Why I don't have a girlfriend: An application of the Drake Equation - <AUTHOR> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/phd_students/backus/girlfriend <comment><USER2> When this guy goes out at night, he meets a perfectly random sample of people from London, totally uncorrelated to any of his variables? Where is this stochastic heaven? The statisticians want to know!

(Put another way, maybe he should frequent more singles bars in educated neighborhoods, where the clientele is of about his age and attractive to him.)

<comment><USER3> Yep. Thankfully, unlike the search for sentient life, there are ways we can significantly increase nearly all of his probabilities with just a little bit of thought.

<comment><USER4> He is using the wrong equation. His problem is not to do with being in stochastic hell. It is his search strategy. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> * I think 5% chance of him finding a women attractive is too low. Physical attractiveness _could_ be affected by him finding a girl that matches the other criteria.

* The equation doesn't take in to account the constant influx of new people in London. And who's to say she is of British nationality?

* More importantly, where does he state the chance of the 'chosen' one liking him? Further to this - and I don't want to generalise here - but in my experience, this is precisely the type of humour that women _do not find funny_.

Finally: _"on a given night [..] out in London there is [..] a 1 in 285,000 chance"_

Should this be _in a given instance_? I live in London and probably walk past 1,000 people every day. I know that's not a meaningful interaction but, using his variables, in a given day that means there's a 1 in 285 chance I walked past 'the one'.

Life is cruel. As someone else has said, hang out in some university bars and break the random sample.

EDIT: Grammar, spacing.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is the third submission of this article in a few days: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1031898> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1030950>

Please do a search on <http://searchyc.com/> before submitting articles.

</comment><comment><USER7> Whoever wants to do/acomplish something finds a way. Whoever doesn't finds a reason.

You have your reasons(based on faulty assumptions) so I would conclude that you simply don't want a girlfriend.

</comment><comment><USER8> Annoying landing page to get to the PDF article but amusing when you get there. Now you can play - "spot the faulty assumptions".

<comment><USER9> Do you _really_ find only 5% of girls your age attractive ?! And you say you were being generous!

I've been to London and the girls are not that horrible there, are they? Or was it the beer goggles?

Interesting paper, though. Thanks for writing it.

<comment><USER10> I've lived in London, and to be honest I found far less than 5% of women my age attractive.

<comment><USER11> Are you 70?

<comment><USER10> When I lived there I was around the average age of pornmodels and supermodels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've recently written an "An accurate description of a potential person to share some lifetime with": [http://romansnitko.posterous.com/an-accurate- description-of-...](http://romansnitko.posterous.com/an-accurate-description- of-a-potential-person)

My friend says I'm gonna be sooo single.

</comment><comment><USER13> Amusing idea but theory that underlies calculations is full of unreal assumptions. Let's consider spherical cow in vacuum instead.

</comment><comment><USER14> This has been posted twice in the last month.

</comment><comment><USER15> The author chooses to limit his options to women who already have college degrees, to women currently living in London, etc. People aren't plants or inanimate objects. They can move to different places. They can go back to school. Etc.</comment>


The US is 'looking at' banning TikTok and other Chinese social media apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/tech/us-tiktok-ban/index.html <comment><USER2> I'm unsure how they can do this without falling afoul of things like the first amendment? Short of having an import ban maybe?

But how would that apply to the app stores? They have non-US customers wanting non US sanctioned businesses?

Obviously they could terminate individual corps them if they broke criminal laws, but the reality is that almost anything that tiktok's surveillance has done has been done by the US social networks at this point as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Has Apple investigated them for the clipboard thing? Or did that turn out to be a hoax?

<comment><USER4> Turned out to be something that is common to many other apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is nothing but anti-chinese hysteria.

<comment><USER5> Maybe OP or other users are hopping aboard a hysteria train, but as a presumably Stallmanist community we should be heavily concerned about the closed source data siphoning software of our geographic and ideological rivals.

China is just as right to be concerned about our companies being NSA backdoors as we are worried about TikTok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this legal?

<comment><USER7> "I will make it legal." \-- Senator Palpatine

Sorry, in all seriousness though, I'm sure there's a legal pathway for any action the gov't wishes to take here [1].

[1] [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> About time

</comment><comment><USER9> Anti-Chinese hysteria plain and simple. After all, it's not like China has not banned or restricted American social media apps.

</comment><comment><USER10> This must be done in the interest of national security.</comment>


Rent Books Netflix-style with Online Book Rental - <AUTHOR> http://www.bookswim.com/ <comment><USER2> I've been telling people for years that libraries should do this for extra money. I'll be really curious to see how they do.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've heard of this before, and my first comment was "Why can't I just go to the library?"

<comment><USER4> Why do so many people rent movies from Blockbuster instead of checking them out from the library?

One advantage of Blockbuster is that they usually have many copies of new releases in stock, as soon as they are released. A lot of libraries do not get movies until several days or weeks after the DVD has been released (if ever). And, they tend to have very few copies. The library lets you check out new releases for longer than Blockbuster allows you to rent them. Plus, Blockbuster's rental fee discourages many people from renting, whereas the library's cost-free nature encourages gluttonous movie consumption. All of this means that it is unlikely that you will get the movie you want when you show up at the library, but you will probably get it at Blockbuster.

Are book rentals analogous to movie rentals? I think nobody can say for sure, until we've seen what happens with these book-rental outfits.

For a long time, I've wanted to try to set up premium library services. Imagine that somebody pays a membership fee to a library, say $25.00 a month. In return for that fee, they get to keep books three times as long as non- premium members. In addition, they get online checkout with delivery services (by mail or in person).

Plus, they can direct 25% or so of their membership fees towards the purchase of specific books. For example, if I was a member for a year, I would have 12x$25*(25%)=$75 of purchasing power. I could order $75 of books through the library's website. The library could purchase the books and have them delivered directly to me, but I would have to return them to the library at the end of the (extended) check-out period.

Or, if I don't want to return a book (one that I forced the library to order, or one they already have), I could buy the copy I already have checked-out from the library. The library could use this money to purchase a new copy of the book, or it could use the money to purchase a different book instead.

<comment><USER3> "Why do so many people rent movies from Blockbuster instead of checking them out from the library?"

No doubt because the stock they hold is woefully out of date and even then they don't carry the blockbusters. Library budgets just don't stretch to holding the same stock that Blockbuster can afford.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oy Vey.

You know why netflix didn't happen before everyone had DVD players? Because VHS tapes are bulky and heavy. They cost more to send, and don't fit through many letter boxes. I can't imagine how you can possibly do this with any reasonable profit margin, and it isn't any more convenient than simply buying the books.

<comment><USER2> I'd guess because they're assuming/hoping most people are slower to read books so there'll be less back and forth?

Does seem like a big problem though. Local distrib centres might help once they were sufficiently "big".</comment></comment>


How Bitcoins became worth $10,000 - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/how-bitcoins-became-worth-10000/ <comment><USER2> In the entire article there is nothing about how other countries are getting involved such as Japan and China.

>Japan recognized bitcoin as a legal form of payment earlier this year, and bitcoin trade in the country now accounts for about half the volume of global trade, compared with about a quarter in the U.S.</comment>


The Dark Mode craze may do more harm than good – this is why - <AUTHOR> https://www.techradar.com/news/the-dark-mode-craze-may-do-more-harm-than-good-this-is-why <comment><USER2> There are so many wrong things with this, that I don't even know where to begin. I think the article can be boiled down to this: "I don't like how dark mode looks".

On the contrary, I do like darkmode. Sometimes. When it is done well. For me, reading white on black is easier than black on some bright texture.</comment>


10-Year-Old Scholar Takes California College By Storm - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/10-year-old-scholar-takes_n_101716.html <comment><USER2> "The Myth of Prodigy and Why It Matters" was a presentation done by Malcolm and is a must read. [http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?...](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2026)

Gladwell makes the distinction between gifted learners vs. gifted do'ers.

<quote> We think of precociousness as an early form of adult achievement, and, according to Gladwell, that concept is much of the problem. "What a gifted child is, in many ways, is a gifted learner. And what a gifted adult is, is a gifted doer. And those are quite separate domains of achievement." </quote>

</comment><comment><USER3> For a long time I've been meaning to write about the subject, and what was to be a simple comment morphed into this essay.

On YC:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=190148>

Or directly:

[http://daniellefong.com/2008/05/15/advice-to-the-bright- and-...](http://daniellefong.com/2008/05/15/advice-to-the-bright-and-young/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I agree with the commenters who point to the parents. This kind of prodigy is usually the product of an ambitious parent trying to vicariously superachieve. I think that explains why so few go on to great (or even comparable) achievement in later life. It's because they weren't living out their own identity but something that was assigned to them. Sooner or later this is bound to be rejected or otherwise collapse.

The vast majority of children want simply to be like other children and, most of all, to have their parents' love. I believe it is the latter force that drives the typical child prodigy. That is, what drives the achievement is not anything like intellectual passion (which mostly comes later) but a desire for the parent's approval and love. It's sad when that is conditional on mastering calculus at age 8 or what have you.

<comment><USER5> I don't know. The thing is, I got into the highly gifted magnet program at lausd (the group for kids with IQs>=145) thanks to my parents. But my parents were completely oblivious as to what all of that nonsense from the school principal was and just signed all the papers without really reading anything. They actually thought I caused some trouble at school when they got a call from my teacher who wanted to talk about me..except it was cause I was in the 99th percentile in everything and finished classwork in 5 minutes what would take everyone else an hour (and played games on the Macs we had in class :D).

So I mean, this stuff happens with or without parents. I think it's cause I really enjoyed all these things..my parents sat me down with the Sunday comics to get me to read when I was a baby not because they wanted me to be some genius, but because apparently it looked like I had an interest in the colorful stuff on the paper. (On a sidenote, some parents think they can make their kids into "genius"es and their kids overwork themselves to get into these programs to get their approval and man it ends up being a waste of time!)

I believe Moshe is a very cute kid who has brains. I think that his parents realized that early on and got him to do all these things. My ultimate problem with this situation is that he's too young and inexperienced in every other way..he's only known that life he has now and nothing else, and there's probably no way in hell his parents will backtrack and just leave him alone (probably blame it on him eventually reaching puberty? who knows). I don't know if he'll end up regretting it, or if he'll end up thanking his parents for what they've done. But I think it's a damn shame regardless.

And you do have a really valid point that not a lot of people are realizing. I can count a LOT of people my age and older that I know were just as gifted as this kid..but what did they end up doing? Um, nothing that someone will remember 10 years later, usually. That doesn't mean they're not gifted..they're pretty intelligent. But it's not something that really stands out..it's usually what they want to do and they just do it.

<comment><USER6> Hey, me too. I was at Carpenter Avenue in the valley. Didn't go all the way to Walter Reed but I did enjoy the HG classes. It was a real "wealth effect" of intelligence. LAUSD seems to be very proactive.

<comment><USER5> I think they are in the beginning, but at the end (basically, during high school) all that happens is that you get stuffed with AP and honors classes galore. Everything that was good in elementary and junior high just disappears :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh jeez, I know this kid. I have the same piano teacher as he does, and I felt so sorry for him. His lessons were often after mine.

Personally, I think his parents (his dad in particular) ARE pushing him way too much.

<comment><USER7> Anything specific?

<comment><USER5> While I think he's a really nice and smart kid (basically, like all of my friends from all those stupid programs), I don't think he's had much experience outside practicing/studying/fine tuning all these things he does at school and at his extracurricular activities.

And really, as much as that article says his parents didn't want to push him, I get the impression that they do, and maybe to extremes...at the least, they imply so.

I want him to be a kid! I've had MANY friends go this route at various ages (but all still earlier than usual), and some of them regret slaving away at classwork only to end up like everyone else except a couple years faster..which ends up meaning almost nothing most of the time. It really depends on the person..but almost all of them follow the same pattern. Study, study, study, do lots of extracurriculars..get into college, go to grad school a bit early, and end up in the same place as half their intellectual peers. Do employers care? Not really. Do schools care? Maybe for the teeny bit of publicity, but not really. In fact, if you do skip that much that early you probably end up running into issues with school administration.

Honestly, is there something bad about taking ones time? I used to take classes at the CC when I was 11-12ish, and I felt insanely out of place in most of them because everyone was several years older than me and while it was easy to get acquainted with others (it can be an interesting introduction), it's just not the same. My parents liked the idea but they would babysit me the whole way through (well, not the classwork) because they weren't comfortable with me beling alone on campus.

Essentially, the behavior of any preteen just won't be the same as anybody over 18.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think more cases similar to this (ok, maybe not _this_ young, but still) will, or should, happen more in the future. I'm sure there's many opportunities where a kid is actually interested in studies but can't or doesn't go on the "fast track" for various reasons.

One reason, I think, is that kids are expected to play non-productive games all the time. Another is that there's this warped, prevalent perspective that work and play are opposites.

<comment><USER5> I don't know about that. There are plenty of cases similar to this, and yes, even younger.

I got pushed into a gifted program (the highly gifted magnet schools in LAUSD) by my parents. It was boring, and I wish they didn't - the people I met were fantastic but the program itself was the biggest waste of time. Another kid in my class made the papers like this one cause he finished his HS diploma and went on to college early, and his mom fought EVERYONE along the way to make it happen.

Of course, I dropped out of HS early and went to a community college too (well, I took a whole bunch of classes there starting from 6th grade anyway), and I enjoyed the experience. A lot of my friends went from middle school to college. There are a fair number of programs like that around like at Cal State LA..a few more places..Simon's Rock is another one I can think of now.

I don't think it's really the studying, but the attitude. The only time I liked the gifted program was where we almost had individualized studies (one kid might be doing basic math, another could be doing algebra) but were grouped together into one class (the social factor) and we were free to do whatever we want. I liked community college because I picked what I wanted to do, generally wasn't stuffed with useless busywork (I dropped most of those classes and took the same one with different profs), et cetera. Meanwhile, the equivalent AP classes at the HS were boring, nothing BUT busywork, and we HAD to stick with the schedule studying to the tests we had to take and there was no room for anything more because some people couldn't keep up. The forced- ness was what I hated.

And yeah, that whole work and play are opposites thing is annoying too. I learn a lot from hands-on labs and things, and we didn't get to do a lot of those ever. Maybe it was because it was a cash-strapped public school?

Finally, I think all of this needs to be customized to the student, because that's what makes it so good. The gifted program I was in was great for some, the early college stuff was great for others, and neither really worked for me.

<comment><USER9> People who go on to discover great things don't learn from the professors. Let's take math as an example. One creates advances in mathematics by sitting with the literature, a pencil, and a pad. Every great idea comes only after thousands of failed starts.

<comment><USER5> That is also true. But sometimes you need a mentor of sorts to help you when you need it, and some professors can do that well.

<comment><USER9> At this juncture, a professor stops being a professor and becomes a colleague.

EDIT: What I am trying to say is that a professor/student relationship is one of inequality. When the relationship moves beyond only one side influencing the course of discussion/discovery, then a relationship of equals is established, albeit a relation of equals where one side is more equal than the other (and that relationship may swap over the course of time).

<comment><USER10> I like that phrasing. And most bright kids never get a "colleague" like that. I just finished reading Lockhart's Lament, and it made me sad that even though I was one of the best students in my IB program in high school, then got a BS in CS, I had to learn from the internet 10 years later that math is a journey of creative discussion.

<comment><USER9> The first time through a Bachelor's program I made the same mistake. I wanted so much to get out of school and head into the business world. The result was a finance degree and an intense urge to go back to school to pursue math and computer science. Now I am going back to pursue those two at Bowling Green, and I will not make the same mistake again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If he doesn't watch it he'll end up like Michael Jackson, spending his adult life trying to recreate his lost childhood.

</comment><comment><USER12> Over. Scheduled.

On the flip side I think we _should_ front-load education because kids hardly learn anything from jr. high onward, thanks to the hormone fairy. There are a few exceptions, of course.

<comment><USER5> I think all high schools could do with starting classes a couple hours later, and to lessen the busywork.

It certainly works for me. I schedule all my college classes after 10am if possible, otherwise I just fall asleep in class no matter how early I go to sleep the night before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe pg should have been less negative about the abilities of 10 year olds in his essay.

Of course it's hard to know very much by age 10 if your parents lie to you frequently. But that isn't the child's fault.

<comment><USER14> It doesn't take much insight to see that this kid's life is hyper-scheduled and regulated by his parents. His Dad is "fretting" that his _grade_ in piano will be bad, because he _broke his arm_ in martial arts? Time to get some perspective, Pop....

Point being, this kid doesn't have the experience to know what he's missing by not being a little boy. Who says that his parents are telling him the truth?

<comment><USER15> Dude can grep wikipedia and has parents that can talk about topics in a deep way, or provide resources to him on topics that interest him. Most parents would do the opposite and restrict internet access for starters, let alone have the ability to assist in his intellectual interests. As far as kid activities his age, I'm sure he would be bored stiff around others. That seems like a blessing to avoid behavior that would no doubt only lead to worse choices later in life.

<comment><USER5> I don't think so. Resources, yes. But not necessarily parent-talk. And I think if he was this smart (which I do), that he'd be able to do this on his own..not this early, but eventually, somehow.

Also, some parents do the opposite, some don't. Some misunderstand the purpose of the internet, which I think is the real problem. My parents attempted to and eventually stopped trying to filter what I did on the computer after I circumvented everything they tried and turned the tables on them (I was a complete brat :D), but they also spent a fortune of their then-pitiful earnings on books and toys and hardware I wanted. They felt that was more important than indulging their own desires (typical asian parents).

Now I'm paying that back in various ways, and I thank them for all of that. I don't think I would have been the big geek I am now if it wasn't for them putting up with me tearing apart half the electronics they owned.

I wonder what he'll turn out to be like 10 years later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Downey in the hizzle! I'll hire him as an intern at my startup... if he keeps his grades up.

<comment><USER6> Ouch. Excuse me. I'm just glad to have news stories about Downey that don't involve the house the Carpenters used to live in.

<comment><USER12> The downmodding is for conflating grades with "deservedness" re: interning at your startup.

First, if someone does the work, they should get the pay/equity, regardless of age.

I say forget grades and jumping through other people's hoops. If he wants to do it, he will do it for its own sake.

Second, I'd let the poor kid hang out at my startup just to get away from his parents and structure. He can play with action figures or something. Of course maybe he's perfectly happy where he is, but if not, it would be nice to have someplace to go where the adults just leave you alone. A lot of us can relate to his situation.

<comment><USER6> I'm just saying there's not much going on in Downey. There really isn't. Downey makes Burbank look like Mountain View.

I am not in a position to have anyone intern (I run my startup out of my house -- Downey doesn't let you have a business license for an apartment, by the way!) That, and I flunked out of college in my first semester.

My offer is entirely tongue-in-cheek and it came from the same place you're coming from. But I understand you don't know me, so it's cool. Nice to meet you!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Python Release Python 3.5.0b3 - <AUTHOR> https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-350b3/ <comment><USER2> Python 3.5 adds support for the '@' operator, designed for use in matrix multiplication. ("A*B" is element-wise multiplication, and "A@B" is matrix multiplication.)

There's nothing in the implementation which restricts is to matrix multiplication. While there are good reasons to be restrained with operator overloading, I have an idea of a domain-specific use in XML.

XML's XPath defines '@abc' as a way to select an attribute from an element tag. Right now if I want to get all elements named "SEGMENT" and display the "title" and "length" attributes, I might do:

      from xml.etree import ElementTree as ET
      etree = ElementTree.parse("example.xml")
      for segment in tree.find("SEGMENT"):
        print(segment.attrib["title"], segment.attrib["length"])

What about allowing 'x@"y"' as a shorthand for 'x.attrib["y"]', so the last line becomes:

        print(segment@"title", segment@"length")

? Is that too much magic in order to get the domain appropriate syntax?</comment>


The Maven Adoption Curve - <AUTHOR> http://tech.puredanger.com/2009/01/28/maven-adoption-curve/ Kool-Aid recovery. ;-) <comment><USER2> I've been proud to be on the first page of google results for 2 years on the query of "maven sucks", not quite as proud that it remains on my top ten most visited pages month after month. Most people don't have a lot of interest in making their build process non-deterministic.

<comment><USER3> and I though I hated maven :), so glad to hear some people don't like it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It might have been coincidence, but somehow all the Java projects that involved Maven were even less fun than the other ones. To the point that I decided to reject further projects that involve Maven, except that is all Java projects now...</comment>


Show HN: Rapid, Conflict-Free Collaborative Word Processor - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/notionaldocuments/notionaldocuments <comment><AUTHOR> A proof of concept for applying logic to communication over text.

\- Collaboratively draft and edit at close to messaging speed

\- Develop paragraphs rationalistically by discussion and debate

\- Co-edit without conflict: share the document's outline and settle with an unlimited number of co-authors over entire paragraphs of ideas. Keep those you want, discard those you don't

\- Draft a document without the need to view the document</comment>


Is that photo legit? Izitru offers an answer - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/news/is-that-photo-legit-izitru-offers-an-answer/ <comment><USER2> Seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. And I'm weary as to how reliable their automated methods for tamper detection are (if someone really cares they would want every image manually examined anyway).

It also seems like these two quotes are contradictory:

> It won't necessarily help you figure out if a photo shared on Facebook is > too good to be true...

> ...Izitru also could help when people need to send photos to...others who > would want to be sure a photo is legitimate

<comment><USER3> >I'm weary

You mean 'wary', I think, unless thinking about it is exhausting you?

Their site probably uses the same processes as this app: [http://www.fourandsix.com/fourmatch/](http://www.fourandsix.com/fourmatch/)

<comment><USER4> uhhh... isn't that their app? (the company is same)

<comment><USER3> Sure it is. It was linked from an older article about the company. (I didn't say it wasn't their app).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On the website: "... Your image will be hosted on our site ..."

Is that even legal without opt-in or so?</comment>


Interview with StrongWebmail's $10,000 Hacker - <AUTHOR> http://www.fireblog.com/exclusive-interview-with-strongwebmails-10000-hacker/ <comment><USER2> Is it just me, or I don't see anywhere in this interview that they actually paid up...

<comment><USER3> I was wandering the same thing - I remember their blog said "they were investigating whether or not contest rules had been followed". Which is kinda stupid, since attackers don't follow the rules, and could make more than $10,000 by NOT telling you about the vulnerability.

Anyway... I really appreciate his emphasis on never expecting things to be "bullet proof". People need to remember that more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a great hack. The company received a message claiming details proving an XSS vulnerability, but the details did not in fact exist until they followed the instructions in the message _with the vulnerable interface_ meaning that in effect the email acted like a call to a function returning a promise[1] which was fulfilled when the message was read.

1- <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_and_promises>

</comment><comment><USER5> Cool stuff, but I disagree with Lance's last word. The public ( _not_ the technically inclined) is going to expect "bullet proof" performance, so saying you aren't is going to hurt you.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is anyone interested in the value provided by Firehost? They seem to have the expertise.

<comment><USER7> Firehost is a new company but their advantage is they built their infrastructure starting with Security and that's their core focus</comment></comment>


We built a puppy news bot to save journalism - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dnlbtlr/we-built-a-puppy-news-bot-to-save-journalism-dfe0e70363cc#.gpj5hxjf2 <comment><USER2> Do you track VAU not MAU?</comment>


ReMail (YC W09) Acquired by Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.remail.com/blog/posts/157001 <comment><USER2> I'm not sure shutting down a product and hiring the founder(s) should be classed as an 'acquisition'.

It's just a recruitment with a golden hello really.

These seem to be getting more and more common lately.

<comment><USER3> I'm curious. 'a recruitment with a golden hello really' means that they had an offer of acquisition but with a 'you have to work for us' clause?

<comment><USER4> I believe axod's point is that an acquisition on this scale may simply amount to a signing bonus, rather than what investors might consider a substantial exit.

Since he is shutting down the original project, and terms are not disclosed, it's entirely possible that he simply became tired of running it, applied for Google, interviewed and was hired.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but you had asked for clarification.

<comment><USER5> Do you think Google would fake an acquisition though? It's hard to imagine for a company of that stature and those means.

<comment><USER2> Six Apart 'acquired' Pownce [1]. Shut it down, then a year later and the 2 founders have left [2].

I'm always slightly skeptical ;) but these things just seem like a way to avoid having your baby in the dead pool to me.

[1] [http://www.sixapart.com/blog/2008/12/welcome-pownce- team.htm...](http://www.sixapart.com/blog/2008/12/welcome-pownce-team.html) [2] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/02...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/02/12/AR2010021204437.html)

<comment><USER6> The fact they both left shortly after a year would perhaps point to something a bit more substantial than a signing bonus. More like a retention bonus tied to the acquisition. That's what I thought when I read about LC's departure the other day anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congratulations are definitely in order, but seeing as they're discontinuing their product, I can't help but be reminded of: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1117668> :-)

</comment><comment><USER5> Congrats to the team but...

How can you say: _"[Thanks to] Paul Buchheit and Sanjeev Singh [who] endured my slide deck on our multi-step plan for global email domination, and pointed out that instead I should build something small, simple, and useful. It worked."_

It worked so well that you kill the product? Or does "it worked" refer to the pay day + google job?

<comment><USER8> I assume the plan is to integrate his product into mobile Gmail. _His_ product will die, but all of those ideas will live on.

<comment><USER5> There's no mention of any future for the ideas, even vague NDA-friendly ones. That's the issue.

<comment><USER9> Why would Google make this acquisition if there was no value in the product, if they intended to do nothing similar, if they could make no use of the work done to date, of the outcome of the experiment, of the experience of the team?

They wouldn't. Google just acquired the leading experts at monetizing search on the iPhone. Can't you see the value in that for Google from many angles?

Everything Google does has to fit Google's scale - and that is at odds with architecting a product at a startup. So you rewrite it, you get the new DNA incorporated into existing product lines, and you move forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Awesome. Congrats Gabor & company.

Seems like Google is acquiring an awful lot of ex-employees lately, with Etherpad, Aardvark, and now ReMail. Makes sense given their hiring push and large cash supply, but it makes me wonder if the best way to fame and fortune is to do well at Google and then to leave Google...

<comment><USER11> _do well at Google and then to leave Google_

You forgot the whole middle part where you have to burn the midnight oil working on your startup, raising $, seeing uncertainty written all over your adventure. Yes, even if you are an ex-Googler.

<comment><USER10> The type of engineers who "do well at Google" tend to do that anyway. The risk is a bit less, but the workload is just as high, and (depending upon your project) the uncertainty can be too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is Google trying hire back every engineer or intern who left it?

<comment><USER9> Yes. People go off, try new things, then get acquired and brought back into the mothership to incorporate their experiment. Its a very valid model of R&D.

<comment><USER13> Worked out for Steve Jobs as well

<comment><USER14> Agreed, but he's an outlier.

<comment><USER9> In terms of the Apple acquisition of NeXT, Steve Jobs is not an outlier.

Founders leaving big companies, often in groups, to found starups that are later acquired by big companies - often one they previously worked for, is common.

Its the most common pattern among successful startups. Its happened since day one of silicon valley, 110 years ago. This pattern is the basis of most of the wealth in the area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Google and reMail have decided to discontinue reMail's iPhone application, and we have removed it from the App Store. reMail is an application on your phone. If you already have reMail, it will continue to work. We'll even provide support for you until the end of March"

Good for them, congrats, but oy-vey!

</comment><comment><USER16> Personally, I wouldn't move to work for a big company like Google after running a successful startup like this unless I had to as part of the deal. Not because Google is evil, but because you lose your independence. I wonder if that was part of the deal.

<comment><USER10> Isn't that part of getting acquired? You typically don't get acquired by other startups (they don't have money), and you typically get far less of a payout if you don't work for the acquirer afterwards (they want the talent that built the software in addition to the software itself).

<comment><USER16> * forehead-slap *

Of course, ignore my dumb comment :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Everytime I hear about a startup being acquired by Google I think of <http://suicidefood.blogspot.com/>. As the ultimate goal of the startup seems to be, being devoured.

</comment><comment><USER18> Congrats!

How much?

</comment><comment><USER19> Will Google's "acquisition" strategy give current Google employees a greater incentive to leave the company and start their own? For example, some top engineers might have an idea for a product and will be incentivized to leave, knowing that Google will buy them as a talent acquisition.

</comment><comment><USER20> > I will be joining Google in Mountain View as a Product Manager on the Gmail > team.

> Gmail is where my obsession with email started as an engineering intern back > in 2004...

That must feel great.

<comment><USER21> I guess it would feel even better to sell your startup after having been rejected by Google...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Congrats!

</comment><comment><USER23> This is not an acquisition. It's the death of a product. And I called this one also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=907456>

My prediction accuracy on startup failure is pretty good, I think!

<comment><USER24> Maxklein, your comments consistently give me the impression that you live to belittle the achievements of others. Is that really the impression you intend to convey? You seem like a smart guy, but this stuff is painfully unpleasant to read. (You're not the only one, by any means. And yes, I would raise this concern in person.)

As for Remail/Google: what firsthand knowledge about this transaction do you have?

<comment><USER25> Also, I don't understand why he emails companies asking for discounts on web apps when he's bringing in 20k/month in revenue.

<comment><USER23> To both questions: I am the Ebenezer Scrooge of hacker news.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Great,thanks for killing a great iPhone app!

</comment><comment><USER25> Congratulations, man.</comment>


Solutions to SICP Exercises - <AUTHOR> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3035

<comment><USER2> I believe this has been linked before: [<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=167335>]

</comment><comment><USER3> Where do people find the time to do this?

<comment><USER4> Knowledge is power. Arm yourself.</comment></comment>


Challenger, Columbia, and the lies we tell ourselves - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222141-challenger-columbia-and-the-lies-we-tell-ourselves <comment><USER2> I'll highlight the conclusion to this well-written essay on the 'normalization of deviance':

> The biggest lie we tell ourselves is that bigger fish than us automatically > make better decisions than we do. Challenger, Columbia, and the hundreds of > tragedies large and small that have played out in the intervening thirty > years are proof they don't. All too often, the wrong people end up paying > for the failure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, those who gain and those who lose are not the same people. Just like bankers taking their bonuses from bail out money.

No "skin in the game".

<comment><USER2> I don't think this has much, if anything, to do with 'skin in the game.'

Rather, what additional "skin" would have prevented this from occurring?

Th major issue I have with that phrase is that we're all playing different games. If they aren't properly aligned, then increasing the risk for one game might destroy the other.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Your turn to buy the coffee? Coffee run can help! - <AUTHOR> https://coffeerun.azurewebsites.net

<comment><USER2> Neat idea, I'd use it for our Friday McDonalds runs if I didn't enjoy going round and personally asking people so much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


The never-advertised, always coveted headphones built and sold in Brooklyn - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/some-of-the-worlds-most-reknowned-headphones-built-in-a-brooklyn-townhouse/

<comment><USER2> grado is definitely well-known and well-respected among audiophiles. there's also audeze in socal who also handcrafts their cans: [http://www.audeze.com/products](http://www.audeze.com/products) (i helped write their original business plan a few years ago.)</comment>


Someone Built an Electric Harley-Davidson Motorcycle in 1978 - <AUTHOR> https://www.cycleworld.com/yes-someone-built-an-electric-harley-davidson-motorcycle-in-1978 <comment><USER2> >Someone Built an Electric Harley-Davidson Motorcycle in 1978

But it never caught on because it doesn't make noise.

Where would the fun in that be?

I mean you couldn't use that bike to ride down residential streets at 3:00am and wake everyone up!

<comment><USER3> The Harley sound is considered sacred.

"Harley-Davidson attempted to register as a trademark the distinctive "chug" of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle engine. On February 1, 1994, the company filed its application with the following description: "The mark consists of the exhaust sound of applicant's motorcycles, produced by V-twin, common crankpin motorcycle engines when the goods are in use." Nine of Harley-Davidson's competitors filed oppositions against the application, arguing that cruiser- style motorcycles of various brands use the same crankpin V-twin engine which produces the same sound. After six years of litigation, with no end in sight, in early 2000, Harley-Davidson withdrew their application."

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

<comment><USER2> Gimme a break.

They use an outdated engine design, that can only achieve reasonable HP if the engine has pipes on it that let it 'breathe', not mufflers mind you just pipes.

Maybe if either of Mr Harley or Davidson were brought back to life today, they'd probably laugh at the fact that people still use that design and go on to manufacture electric crotch rockets instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This site shows a rare glimpse to what is happening underneath that enables "free" web

[1] -> View List of Cookies Used on this Site

[1] [https://www.cycleworld.com/consent.php?redirect=https%3a%2f%...](https://www.cycleworld.com/consent.php?redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.cycleworld.com%2fyes- someone-built-an-electric-harley-davidson-motorcycle-in-1978)

<comment><USER5> Pretty ridiculous I must admit, but what do you propose is the alternative? Micropayments is a utopian fantasy that would never play out in reality and pay walls eliminate what makes the web valuable to so many people.

I would never have run across this (actually pretty interesting) article and information if it was hidden behind a paywall because I don't own a motorcycle.

This kind of serendipitous exposure to a diverse set of viewpoints and information would not be possible outside of a free-yet-cookie-filled internet.

I know this sentiment will be unpopular around here, but personally, my concerns around privacy begin and end with governments. X profit motivated company wants to track my browsing activity to sell me consumer products in exchange for paying their (already barely paid) writers? Go right ahead. If you annoy me enough I'll just turn off cookies.

<comment><USER6> You know, if it was restricted _purely_ to advertising, I suspect that most people could live with this. However when they then start to use this tracking information for pricing discrimination people start to get twitchy. When you start to use it for political purposes, including political advertising, people start to get twitchy. When they start to use it for credit rating scores, etc, etc.

<comment><USER7> > people start to get twitchy

You mean all the people who don't have a facebook account?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> An interesting find. Motorcycles and similar sized vehicles show the limitation of batteries more than automobiles as they have less ability to absorb the weight and space requirements. While there are some +100 mile range bikes their range drops off very fast at highway speeds, bikes not being the most aerodynamic.

Personally, my turn off has been lack of locking storage and good wind protection. Both add weight and wind protection will range because of increased drag but for those of us who like to commute on two wheels having secure and dry storage for out gear and work items, think laptop, is always a concern. I am really hoping for a HD EV that can use the full range of accessories for either Softtail or Touring line with sufficient range to get to a Poker run, ride it, and return. So figure 200 mile range at near constant highway speeds. To displace big touring bikes it will have to be at highway speeds

</comment><comment><USER9> Looks like Harley is releasing an electric bike next year and it looks really good.

[https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/harley-davidson-electric- moto...](https://electrek.co/2018/04/27/harley-davidson-electric-motorcycles- younger/)

The electric bike options are all really great offerings but are much more expensive than their gas counter parts. I recently picked up a small electric dirt bike and I'm having a blast on it. I won't sell my CBR because that is fun in a different way that an electric cannot replace but the electric has its own positives. Not having a clutch and no engine heat burning you up in traffic make electric bikes perfect for daily commuters.</comment>