PHP in a JavaScript world - <AUTHOR> http://www.blonde.net/blog/2015/05/05/php-javascript-world <comment><USER2> One thing that I don't see in these kinds of articles, and what I think is most important: MySQL speed. When I was researching technology, I compared simple pages that read some data from a MySQL database and display it on an html5 page. I did this in Go, Node, Silk, and PHP. PHP blew everyone else away. Now, this was two years ago, and perhaps their MySQL client implementations have gotten better, but this test was the reason my startup is built using PHP. It's the fastest thing available that isn't Java or C++ based. Supported here: [https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r10&hw=...](https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r10&hw=peak&test=db)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wordpress, drupal, magento, phabricator, mediawiki, sugarcrm...

These are vastly popular, feature rich out of the box tools in PHP, aka the "killer apps".

As I don't follow the node community, what are the killer apps on the node side? Im talking about a complete piece of software, where I would want to set up an environment not for development but for running an application.

<comment><USER4> Personally, I'd say that the front-end tooling ecosystem constitutes the "killer app":

\- Minification: Uglify

\- Transpilation: Babel/TypeScript/CoffeeScript

\- JS Module Systems: Require/Browserify/Webpack/JSPM

\- CSS preprocessors: Less/Sass/Stylus

\- Linting: JSHint/ESLint/CSSLint

If you're using a lot of front-end tools, you're using Node. And if you're using Node, you might as well use it to write your APIs.

<comment><USER5> I agree.

At this time Javascript's biggest strength is build tools. It may not be as mature as PHP on the server, but there is so much community growth that I don't think it will be long catching up.

<comment><USER6> It's like saying PHP as a great community, we will catching up JAVA soon.. non sense, as the topic said, I want to use node if there are some killer app that I want to use, like the one I know in other languages. Do you know any like drupal for example (multilingual, workflow, content management system, and more) ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The event loop is one of Node.js strengths as it makes it blisteringly fast > when dealing with many connections. However the event loop does pose some > challenges. One of the most important things to consider is that you should > never block the event loop. [...] Now some great tools do exist for > monitoring the event loop and if you understand the event loop and take care > not to block it, then everything will most likely be fine. However you > should be mindful of its strengths and limitations while developing.

I think the concurrency model provided by green threads in Go and Erlang is orders of magnitude easier to reason about, where you can write blocking I/O and the scheduler itself will take care of making sure that your code runs fine. The last thing I need when writing concurrent code is yet another thing to think about at every step of the way. This is a hugely underrated flaw in my opinion of node.js servers. With languages like Haskell, Rust, and Go we are seeing a trend of having smarter compilers and language runtimes making programs much easier to write, where I am offloading lots of things from my mind onto the compiler. The whole _point_ of pre-emptive multi-tasking is to relieve the burden of "taking care not to block [the event loop]," and I think in that respect node.js is a step back.

<comment><USER8> I can see your point, and while I'm not versed in Go or Erlang _, moving to JS let me stop worrying about if a value ever changed - as long as I 'm in my portion of code, I alone can change the values. That, in turn, means that I spend very little time worrying - much less than I did in, say, Java.

Sure, I need to not BLOCK stuff for long, but that comes about somewhat naturally as good code: Write small, discrete units.

_ Not knowing modern multithreaded languages may render my entire point moot. I'll have to fix that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been a PHP developer since 1997. December of 2014 I left PHP completely for NodeJS. Best decision of my life.

<comment><USER10> I'd love to play more with Node but I have free PHP hosting. I control the server completely but I have to keep PHP running. I don't how to get NodeJS to play nicely alongside bog standard LAMP stack (and all the rest of the tech) so I haven't done anything with it.

<comment><USER9> It's easy, just install Node. I mean, what complications are you having that you can't get it to work correctly?

Edit:// Also Digita Ocean $5 VPS is cheap to play with Node on, or even use a Vagrant machine.

<comment><USER10> I'd like to have node respond to port 80 http requests for one virtual site and have Apache/PHP respond for other virtual sites so I can use the hardware I already have available. I can think of a few hacky was to make it work but it seems less than ideal.

Obviously I could pay for other hardware but I don't want to do that.

"It's easy, just install Node." funny.

<comment><USER11> It's a fairly common scenario. We're doing this with nginxbut docker'll be a good solution soon enough. The terms to search for are "reverse proxy".

Essentially you setup nginx to listen on port 80, Apache to listen on another port (say, 8080) and node to listen on a different port (say, 8081). Then have your nginx config differentiate between the two:

        upstream apache {
            server 127.0.0.1:8080;
        }

        upstream nodeapp {
            server 127.0.0.1:8081;
        }

        server {
            listen 80;

            server_name myphpapp.example.com;

            location / {
                proxy_pass http://apache;
                proxy_set_header Host $host;
            }
        }

        server {
            listen 80;

            server_name mynodeapp.example.com;

            location / {
                proxy_pass http://nodeapp;
                proxy_set_header Host $host;
            }
        }

IMO this gets a little easier to think about if you substitute your Apache -(mod_php)-> PHP setup for Nginx -(fastcgi)-> php-fpm - handing off to an appserver rather than a webserver.

<comment><USER10> I'm concerned about adding ngnix to the system as that's a fairly significant change to a working system. There are a lot of variables and sites involved.

I've considered reverse-proxying entirely within Apache to avoid adding ngnix another layer. But this really hinders some of the advantages of node which makes me wonder if it's worth even doing. It seems like node is best when it can handle the requests directly.

Your advice here is pretty much the most common answer.

<comment><USER9> > It seems like node is best when it can handle the requests directly

What makes you believe that?

<comment><USER10> Node's single process event-loop model of handling requests seems in direct contrast to apache's one heavy-weight process/thread per request model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Python was supposed to kill PHP. Ruby on Rails was supposed to kill PHP. Now Javascript is supposed to kill PHP? Not a chance, at least in the near future.

<comment><USER13> And PHP was supposed to kill Perl.

At the end of the day, all of the languages being discussed here are all capable of achieving the same goals for 99% of the problems presented. Every language has its pros/cons and brings something new to the table that we usually see the others adopt.

<comment><USER14> As a server-side language, PHP has pretty much killed Perl, hasn't it?

<comment><USER15> server-side as in... shell scripts/daemons?

or server-side as in... cgi/fastcgi serving to a client?

because I would say 'yes' to cgi/fastcgi, but 'no' to shell scripts/daemons.

There are a handful of really cool newish Perl frameworks, but unfortunately I think Perl 5's stigma is so far out there it will never gain any real traction. It seems that Perl 6 has a lot of the same stigma attached to it. I almost wish they would name it something other than Perl so that a fresh perspective could be used, it seems like it's going to be quite nice!

<comment><USER14> I meant the cgi part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> From a more academic approach [1], if you care about efficient concurrency and no context switching between frontend-backend, the node.js platform is an excellent choice.

Figure: [http://imgur.com/NnQ9M5v](http://imgur.com/NnQ9M5v)

[1] [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00607-014-0394-9](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00607-014-0394-9) "Is Node.js a viable option for building modern web applications? A performance evaluation study"

</comment><comment><USER17> I wrote this article so please don't too harsh ;) Crazy to see something I wrote for our company blog on the frontpage of HN this afternoon!

<comment><USER18> This is a good article if you are a backend PHP developer working closely with someone that looks after the front end.

Personally I like these working arrangements and being able to dish up HTML safe in the knowledge that your frontend developer is getting what he needs complete with expected class tags and other markup to be styled. In the future it will probably be better for me as I won't be doing template files with fiddly PHP tags, instead I will be json encoding the requested data, e.g. an array of products. There is a whole lot of logic to getting that array of products, this you need the server for. Presentation of that data? That can be done with the new stuff. From this article I have a better idea of what might be the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> JavaScript or not, something has got to replace that abomination.</comment>


Ryanair pilot strike grounds nearly 400 flights - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/ryanair-pilot-strike-grounds-nearly-400-flights <comment><USER2> If it continues like this Ryanair will be in trouble.

I'm starting to get scared when buying Ryanair tickets. Will there be a strike?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you learn to play guitar? - <AUTHOR> I just started learning to play guitar by watching some guitar lessons from YouTube.<p>If you have done this before, what are the tips and tricks to progress faster? Are there any pitfalls along away that I should avoid? <comment><USER2> I'm 3 to 4 months ahead on the YouTube path you have started on. Here are some tips:

Show up daily. Even if it is only for 5 mins. Which means your Guitar should be handy. Pick it up every time you pass by it and give it go.

You will be managing three things all at once: Strumming, chords and singing. It will be an absolute mindfuck for a bit. The name of the game here is muscle memory. The only way to develop it is with practice. There are no shoutouts.

Most important is to have fun along the way. You don't want the misery to break you down. I recommend targeting some fun songs with just 2 chords and simple strumming. Mine was "Rudolph the red nose reindeer". The timing will work for you as well given that we are in Oct.

Once you develop the muscle memory it starts getting fun. But you have to persist.

<comment><AUTHOR> My strategy right now is not to learn the next chord until I master the ones(A, E and D) which I am currently learning. Master here means to be able to play those thress chords each and move between them effortlessly. Seems like this will take some times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> After taking lessons I just played along to tapes of my favourite artists.

I would also recommend learning tablature.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pitfall is trying to get into tips and tricks to progress faster.

Go slow and steady, practice daily. Follow justin guitar or pebber brown, sit back and practice over and over again.

<comment><AUTHOR> Justin Guitar seems like a great resource. Thanks for sharing!

<comment><USER5> Yeah, that dude has created something special on the internet. The sheer number of hours on camera as well as his print materials blows my mind. He also appears to be the nicest person on the planet.

It's an odd thing giving advice from the perch of mastery. Justin emphasizes the "key" is transcribing songs. Similarly, as a go/baduk acolyte, I'm told by dan players to study tesuji, but most of my practice is playing actual games, just as it is playing actual songs.

Masters fall into the trap of thinking well, what would __I __do to get better? Because of their own preternatural talent and a 360 view of the discipline, they don 't quite see that the less talented, casual learner needs practice to be a non-chore to stay motivated.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Deletes Facebook Secrets Blog - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2007/08/15/facebook-secrets/ <comment><AUTHOR> Does Facebook really own the rights to code that shows up in someone's browser?

<comment> mark-t Do I really own the rights to the camera I lost in Sweden? The police seemed to think so.</comment></comment>


EU Referendum Results - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results <comment><USER3> Since we don't need one story about this at #1 and another at #2, I guess we'll call this thread the dupe and consider the discussion moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966167).

</comment><comment><USER4> The University of East Anglia have a live blog as well that updates their predictions based on statistical model [0] by Dr Chris Hanretty. Predictions are based on how results differ from the prior model. The model is explained in more detail here [1].

[0] [http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/23/eu-referendum- allnight...](http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/23/eu-referendum-allnighter/)

[1] [http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/09/the-eu-referendum- what...](http://www.ueapolitics.org/2016/06/09/the-eu-referendum-what-to- expect-on-the-night/)

Edit: They moved their blog to Medium because of the demand: [https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/eu-referendum-rolling- fore...](https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/eu-referendum-rolling- forecasts-1a625014af55#.5jm66pitl)

<comment><USER5> Live betting from Betfair's betting exchange / prediction market:

[https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.11...](https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.118739911)

Interesting because the odds react far quicker than any live blog I've found, so a sudden swing means that there's just been a surprising result announced.

<comment><USER6> What is the formula to translate from betfair's back/lay for exit/remain to percent likelihood of each outcome?

<comment><USER5> Implied probability is 100 / odds

<comment><USER7> If the odds are 4:1, I'm not sure what that means.

100/4:1 is a notation mystery. 25%?

<comment><USER8> x:y or x/y means y / (x + y), so 4:1 is 1 / (4 + 1) or 20 %.

<comment><USER6> But what do "back" and "lay" mean?

<comment><USER9> Backing is betting on it to happen, laying is being the bookie for somebody else (i.e. betting against it happening).

So if something is 4/1 and you back it, you'll win £4 for each £1 you wager. If you lay it, you'll win £1 for each £4 wagered.

Betfair exchange is matching up people on both sides of the bet, with a margin of commission in between the back and lay values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From my perspective in the UK, it's been interesting (though frustrating) to watch what's been happening.

It definitely seems like political discourse has taken a turn for the worse. In contrast with the Scottish independence referendum a couple of years ago which, although there was some animosity, did feel like a genuine political conversation… this one has seemed much more like an angry shouting match.

I'm particularly interested in the comparison with Trump in the US. In both cases, it feels like a nominally populist, anti-bureaucratic/anti- establishment movement (the extent of the truth in that being debatable) has been able to make a substantial impact with that platform, due in part to the abject inability of that establishment to deal with and neutralise the movement.

<comment><USER11> > t feels like a nominally populist, anti-bureaucratic/anti-establishment > movement (the extent of the truth in that being debatable) has been able to > make a substantial impact with that platform, due in part to the abject > inability of that establishment to deal with and neutralise the movement.

It's happening all over the world: Austria, France (National Front), China, Japan, Turkey, Israel, etc etc.

It's like the world forgot the lessons of the past - the curses of nationalism, populism and ideology - and nobody has stood up to remind them. The latter really angers and depresses me; nobody with a platform is making the well-known arguments about why these things are very dangerous.

<comment><USER12> I want to like the EU and this in fact what was pushed really hard for by the school system at least in Germany. But I can't fail to notice its many disadvantages. It is fundamentally even less democratic than the representative democracies it unites, supposedly run by technocrats that in fact follow agendas set by corporations/industry, with decisions that get sold to the public as inevitable. I _hate_ what the Bologna reforms did to higher education for example, but there are many other instances where EU decisions had extremely negative impact, with sometimes almost no popular support.

Point being not only right wing basket cases don't like the EU. The far left doesn't really like it either. It is a project conceived by US planners and executed by the French and German elites pushed onto the rest of the continent. Whenever there is talk about the "democracy deficit" it is brushed aside as something that will be fixed once Europe has become more integrated.

<comment><USER13> >It is a project conceived by US planners...

Any proof of that? From a US perspective, I can't see how a unified Europe would benefit the US - neither economically nor militarily. The EU is the only state (besides China with 4x the population of the US) that can compare to the US economy. Dealing with smaller countries gives the US an advantage compared with similar deals with the EU itself.

A unified EU military would be the only state both large enough and advanced enough to pose a valid military challenge to US hegemony.

<comment><USER11> Europe is a US ally; the US wants them stronger. Also, dis-unified Europe cost the US quite a bit in the first half of the 20th century.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of my favourite part of this whole thing is seeing just how little my friendship group understand how much FB/Twitter are self-selecting echochambers.

My feeds are full of people who just absolutely cannot believe that other people hold "wrong opinions".

<comment><USER15> This is very true, and something I didn't even realize until I entered a period of life in which I'm simply too busy to participate in social media.

If something went viral, I used to take that as a signal or indicator of how the majority of people think. Now when something goes viral, I think, "that's roughly how a lot of men and almost as many women, age 13 to 30, who are comfortable aligning with that particular opinion publicly, think."

Then I started considering what that might mean for television, movies, print, etc.

I always knew that media was skewed in favor of attracting the youngest audiences, because they're more valuable to advertisers. Now I'm also considering that maybe those forms of media are also skewed in favor of the type of person who tends to watch a lot of television, go to a lot of movies, buy a lot of magazines, etc. I used to think everyone did that, now I know a lot of people do it far less than others.

Daytime television, for example, is full of advertisements for private colleges that exist mostly just to take your SSN so they can pocket federal loan money and list you as the debtor. That's because people who watch daytime television tend to be uneducated and unemployed.

Daytime television is nothing close to a cross-section of humanity. It's content engineered to appeal mostly to people who don't go to school and don't work.

Now, what kind of people tend to watch primetime television? Or listen to terrestrial radio? Or buy a magazine at an airport?

As a result of media producers learning more about their audiences, pretty much every form of media eventually becomes an echo chamber.

<comment><USER16> That's why it's entertaining to look at the ads in the Economist.

<comment><USER15> The first time I read it I was amazed at how unaffordable everything was.

But Bill Gates has said he reads every issue of The Economist from cover to cover, so they definitely know their audience. They'll be in the black as long as they can sell him and Richard Branson one Gulfstream every 5 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, I knew that all the non-attached parts of the UK would want to remain, but not by this much. Both the Shetland and Orkney islands voted to stay by a fair margin, about 65% Remain, but Gibraltar was far more heavily Remain. Gibraltar, for example, had 96% vote to stay, with 85% turnout (!).

This is partly because the islands are far more dependent on the EU than the mainland, but in Gibraltar's case it is particularly extreme. Without EU membership Gibraltar may not be able to have a border with Spain due to the territorial conflict. Spain already occasionally closes the border on a whim, for example when a Spanish fishing boat was arrested for illegally fishing in Gibraltar waters.

[edit] I don't want to get into a debate (w/commenter below) but basically both the UK and Spain claim that they own all the waters. International rulings so far seem to be leaning towards giving the UK some and Spain some; a lot of these rulings come from the EU courts which is yet another reason why those in Gibraltar have a very strong interest to stay.

While I'm amending my comment, I think it's interesting that there were any Gibraltar citizens who voted to leave. This shows that there is a solid 8% of the population or so that will vote how they feel is important despite a very strong economic incentive to the contrary. I'm simultaneously surprised at how few people voted to leave (only 4%!) and at how there were still people who voted to leave despite the obvious economic problems leaving would bring to Gibraltar.

<comment><USER18> Gibraltar does not have waters: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar#T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputed_status_of_Gibraltar#Territorial_waters)

<comment><USER19> That's only the Spanish view.

<comment><USER20> The Treaty of Utrecht only referred to Gibraltar, not the waters. IMHO, it's the UK who has a view.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One of the things I dislike about graphics displaying live (or otherwise unfinalized) electoral results is that the viewer must know something about political geography in order to interpret them: Are the tallies I'm seeing in line with how those districts were supposed to vote? Is it just happenstance that the votes counted so far have come in disproportionately from districts expected to vote against the expected overall result?

Please, if you work on these things, try to help us understand what we're really seeing. Otherwise, your work is for naught, because we will all learn to say, "Bah, I'll check the results in the morning."

Do any of you have ideas about how better to display live results? Maybe a heat map showing the difference in the actual results versus the polled expected results?

<comment><USER22> The New York Times has done live predictive models as results come in, which is the best election night tool I've ever seen. Here's the New York Democratic primary: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/upshot/live- mo...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/upshot/live-model- estimating-new-york-democratic-primary-delegates.html?_r=0)

All of the charts updated in real time based on how precincts actually voted compared to their predictions.

<comment><USER23> I agree completely...a shining example of how there's always more data to the data. I remember in 2014, they were tracking a Senate race in which the underdog, because of the order of precincts reporting, was seemingly on its way to a massive upset. To its credit, CNN made a few caveats while at the same time talking about how exciting things were as they did Jerry- Bruckheimer-zooms of their fancy electorate map...but all the while, the NYT kept calm and steady with its prediction and as the night went on, the vote results line gradually converged to nearly exactly what the NYT's analysis predicted.

It's definitely made election night a lot less dramatic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The BBC just announced that "Britain has voted to leave the European Union".

Leave only needs 2,105,984 more votes to win. [edit 12:15am EST] 1,715,256 votes now and closing fast. [edit 12:19am EST] 1,196,678 [edit 12:27am EST] 894,189 [edit 12:31am EST] 785,549 [edit 12:37am EST] 741,795 [edit 12:38am EST] 592,337 [edit 12:45am EST] 448,596 [edit 12:46am EST] 373,532 [edit 12:51am EST] 308,519 [edit 12:57am EST] 94,635 [edit 1:00am EST] 37,665 [edit 1:02am EST] 0. The UK has officially voted to leave.

Predicted result: Leave 52%, Remain 48%

Wow. So what happens now?

\- Scotland voted 62% Remain. The SNP said it will call a second independence referendum if Leave wins. Many estimate that the independence movement will win this time around. Literally every single Scottish division voted to remain.

\- Gibraltar will probably be royally screwed [0] as well as some other areas that are heavily dependent on trade/travel with EU countries

\- The pound drops like a rock. Was stable at $1.48 all day, peaked at $1.50 earlier after Remain was doing well (~6pm EST), now at $1.33 (12:13am EST), now at $1.32 (12:21am EST) and the lowest level since 1985. In 1985 it hit $1.08, which was then the lowest value in a very long time.

\- The pound is down 17% from the yen by the way.

\- Other independence movements in other EU countries gain a bit of legitimacy. The euro drops (currently at $1.09, down four cents or 3%), and the yen gains (currently up 6%) (12:25am EST)

\- For those of us fortunate enough to have our savings in dollars, everything denominated in pounds is currently on a 12% off sale.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11965342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11965342)

</comment><comment><USER24> The pound is in free fall (-7%)...

[http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd- chart](http://www.investing.com/currencies/gbp-usd-chart)

This is going to hurt...

Edit: now rebounding... Remain is winning now thanks to London.

<comment><USER25> meh, it's still trading around the same levels as it has been since January.

<comment><USER26> Meh? It's the largest single day drop for the Pound in history.

<comment><USER25> When I said meh it was around 1.45. It's now officially beyond meh levels.

<comment><USER26> You replied to the comment that noted it was down 7% which is an outrageous move for a currency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hold the belief that the apocalyptic predictions of Brexit are mostly bunk, and Britain will soldier on. I additionally believe that the market is overreacting.

Can anyone more familiar with UK markets offer suggestions on how I can trade this opinion?

<comment><USER26> Buy the pound, buy FTSE, buy really anything tomorrow because it's all going to be on sale.

<comment><USER28> Yes it is an easy buy. Wait a few days and get options to buy GBP @1.5 USD :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Results are appearing a bit sooner at [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mI2o0smlVC_TyzhsnweL...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mI2o0smlVC_TyzhsnweLEayc3tRgtBxIDCotABtUIX0/htmlview?sle=true) and [https://twitter.com/britainelects](https://twitter.com/britainelects)

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder if referendums should have a higher bar than 50% against the status quo. Referendums are reserved for big changes (generally) or constitutional changes, and the population can be extremely fickle. A 50% target might go one way or another depending on the week or month you call it - and probably doesn't represent a true majority, especially in a state where voting is optional. The ramifications can be very large and shouldn't be expected to change again for a very long time.

If a higher percentage was thought to be a good idea, what would that percentage be? 60/40? 55/65? 70/30? I'm not advocating for this by the way, just figure it might be an interesting thought experiment.

<comment><USER31> I'm inclined to agree given that voting is not compulsory. In Australia, where voting in all elections and referenda is compulsory, I would have to stridently disagree. I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain' vote following the assassination of Jo Cox causing a lot of 'Remain' voters choosing to stay at home in the expectation of 'Remain' comfortably prevailing.

<comment><USER30> I'm Australian, but I'm still not sure a 50/50 split on something so important is right. At least here in Australia you need a 50% total and a 50% of states. I don't think the extra requirement of locality would have prevented the leave in the UK though - it seems only London and Scotland really led the way for the stay vote.

> I suspect the result today was skewed by the big swing towards the 'Remain' > vote following the assassination of Jo Cox

That's kind of what I'm getting at. With a vote so close it's almost a decision that could change day to day, or depending upon the weather. For a vote that can only happen every decade or three I don't think 50% is a high enough bar for change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Results timeline - local (US Eastern):

3-4 a.m. (10-11 p.m.) - Results from half of the counting areas are in

Around 5 a.m. (midnight) - About 80% of counting areas have reported results

7 a.m. (2 a.m.) - All votes are likely to have been counted and the official result is expected shortly after.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is such a tragedy. How many voters and observers understand than that European project was never primarily about economics? It was a political project that has produced 71 years "since an army crossed the Rhine with fire and sword" [0].

And now, we can watch as the project that has brought peace and prosperity to more than almost any in history unravels. And yes, Europe has been failed by horrendous, narrow-minded economic policies of the EU, but a previous generation of leaders who still remembered the horrors of war would not have sacrificed Europe for their own narrow benefits.

[0] [http://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2015/01/the- futur...](http://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2015/01/the-future-of- the-european-project-and-the-future-of-the-eurozone-a-talk-from-2013-the- honest-broker-for-the-week-of-janua.html)

<comment><USER34> I think you're wrong to despair.

The Europe of < 1910 was very different. Socially, politically, and economically. If the EU dissolved today, I don't believe France and Germany would be at war within 200 years. So long as strong democratic values persist in Europe, peace, I think, is a certainty.

<comment><USER35> There is currently war in Europe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis)

<comment><USER34> Yes but Russia is not a member of the EU and its not really a democracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is this going to be decided by the pure number of votes, or is it separated by region and the number of regions is what will decide the result?

<comment><USER37> Pure number of votes. THough the regions will declare separately, it's the net remain vs leave votes overall that matter.

<comment><USER38> A sane voting scheme...unlike what we have in the USA. IMAO of course, but I'm so A about it I don't care.

<comment><USER39> Don't worry, in all of our normal elections it is insane.

<comment><USER40> There was an opportunity to fix the insanity in an earlier referendum. Such a wasted opportunity.

Probably the saddest referendum result in my lifetime [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011)

<comment><USER10> I'm a big fan of reforming the electoral system in the UK, but the AV referendum was an awful fudge at best, plainly just offered as a sop to the Liberal Democrats.

It was genuinely one of the worst referendum campaigns of all time though. I'm still haunted by the 'if you vote for this then babies will die' adverts.

<comment><USER41> [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no- to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/no-to- alternative-vote-baby-ad)

:/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wow. Everything I'd heard today pointed to them staying in the EU. As of now the leave votes are winning. This will probably be one of the big political experiments in my lifetime.

<comment><USER43> There's approx 30m votes to declare - only 1m has so far. It is early

<comment><USER44> If votes were being counted in a completely random order then 1m votes would have been more than enough to determine the result with very high accuracy.

Regional variations are the only reason things haven't been decided yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think this almost guarantees the break up of the UK (if the result stays with the leave Eu campaign). Scotland is voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.

I doubt we'll stand by and stomach a far right dogwhistle government. Most of the politicians advocating leaving the EU also want to abolish the Scottish parliament.

<comment><USER46> I'd like to see an independant Scotland, but I wonder if they would actually vote for independence this time around, even in the face of a Leave vote: the low price of oil, and the chaotic state of the EU might make that look too scary for the Scots

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I don't think this is a vote for the the #brexit campaign as such. The major exit votes are from working class areas that are traditionally Labour meaning this could be more of a #Lexit which was hardly covered in the mainstream media. This is also a general protest vote against the establishment not just the EU.

</comment><comment><USER48> Something I hadn't considered was the breakdown between the individual UK nations.

What happens if the UK as a whole decides to leave the euro zone, perhaps by a small margin or perhaps by a lot, but for some reason Scotland decides buy a 15% margin to stay in the euro zone.

Is there any reason to think we might see Scotland decide to stay with the euro zone it leave the UK in that case? Or are the ties so strong that the UK would probably stay together no matter what even if one of the member nations has a strongly different opinion?

<comment><USER10> (Just a heads-up, the Eurozone and the EU are different – the former is the currency union under the Euro, and membership of the latter is what the referendum is about. Not all members of the EU are members of the Eurozone).

Scotland had an independence referendum less than two years ago, where the outcome was a good 45%-55% in favour of remaining in the UK. However, the majority of representatives in Scotland remain pro-Scottish independence. Continued membership of the EU was an important argument during the independence campaign – with the pro-independence side wanting to remain, and the pro-UK side warning that Scotland would lose EU membership if it voted for independence.

It's likely – but not certain – that there would be a second independence referendum in Scotland on the basis of being 'forced' to exit the EU. But it's not going to be pretty, and there have been a lot of elections in Scotland recently – no doubt everyone is getting a bit fatigued. It's not clear at all what the outcome would be, either, or if Scotland would even be able to maintain EU membership.

<comment><USER48> Thanks, thought I might be getting the "euro zone" part wrong but wasn't sure.

Honestly I was surprised when this whole issue came up because I assumed that the EU and the Eurozone where the same thing. I know the UK never decided to adopt the Euro so I just assumed that they weren't part of the EU.

<comment><USER10> It's not hard to get confused – there are a lot of overlapping groups involved here! The Eurozone, the EU, the ECHR, the EEA… they all have different sets of members and such.

The UK has been a bit frosty about the prospect of further EU integration, possibly with good reason in some ways.

<comment><USER49> Ah! This is where I get to pull out one of my all time favorite Wikipedia graphics: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies- en.svg)

...ya know, just in case you weren't confused enough already!

<comment><USER16> This would be better, if it didn't rely on me knowing all the flags.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm surprised "Leave" is doing as well as it is in Scotland, which is not only more liberal than the UK as a whole, but also somewhat more European --- "Leave" is essentially a solidarity vote with England, isn't it?

You might wonder, if "Leave" wins, whether Scotland's next independence referendum won't succeed as well.

<comment><USER51> The apparent liberalness of Scotland is largely just rhetorical opposition to the rest of the UK's policies. On actual policy issues (e.g. appropriate level of welfare) Scotland polls much like the rest of the UK. Of course they to some extent would prefer European masters to English ones. However they also spent a long time convincing themselves of the feasability of a much deeper divorce, so they probably did not buy into the economic doom stories.

Apparently the low oil price has banished the prospect of Scottish independence for now at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'd suggest retitling this "Brexit referendum results", since I think "brexit" is a term everybody understands.

dang?

<comment><USER53> Well, it's not a referendum on Brexit or a Britain remain, it's a referendum on EU membership with two options: Remain and Leave.

This is unlike the Scottish independence referendum which was a Yes/No vote on if Scotland should to be independent. It's not specifically about either option this time.

All that said, "Brexit referendum" is a name that's been used. (And if the result goes a certain way, well…)

<comment><USER38> >Brexit or a Britain remain

Bremain! Get the hip abbreviations right :)

<comment><USER53> Oh, I did think of that, but it feels cringeworthy…

<comment><USER38> Before you blame me, I didn't think of it either...and even if I didn't I certainly wouldn't promote it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> If you're in the UK, or have a proxy here, visit [https://www.tvplayer.com](https://www.tvplayer.com) and watch BBC 1.

It's not looking good for remain, but it's really early.

</comment><comment><USER55> Follow the conversation live here: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk- politics-36570120](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120)

Also, the chances are the BBC world service radio is covering it in your area.

</comment><comment><USER56> First the Brits, then in a couple months the Americans. There is only so much room in Canada.

<comment><USER16> Wouldn't the Brits move to France or Germany?

<comment><USER56> They'll move to Scotland, which will shortly seek to depart from the south. I cannot wait to see the Queen going through passport control on her way to Balmoral.

<comment><USER16> Why would she need to? She can stay the head of state of all the countries the UK might split into.

(She's also Queen of all Australian states individually.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Since it's looking like a "Leave" right now I just wanted to share Limmy's post-brexit masterplan.

[https://storify.com/576c9f3a3eb177be42c27c82](https://storify.com/576c9f3a3eb177be42c27c82)

</comment><comment><USER58> See also: betting odds ([https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html](https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html)). Was at 85%+ for Remain earlier today, now down to 65%.

<comment><USER58> Now 55% to leave!

<comment><USER59> Now 73% Leave.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Wow, their tech is surprisingly good for government/news.

<comment><USER10> BBC isn't really government, and it's definitely an organisation that's often been quite advanced in pushing new broadcasting technology.

<comment><USER61> Agreed and based on what I've read the funding package that the UK government gives them plus the TV tax (that each UK citizen has to pay with the purchase of a TV) sure helps them stay afloat

<comment><USER62> We pay a TV license annually, not a one-off tax. The BBC receives no government funding, which helps ensure its impartiality.

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

<comment><USER63> I think many other countries have a TV 'tax' as well. I had to pay one living in Germany just for owning a computer.

Makes for great public media in many cases.

<comment><USER61> Do you think taxes like this will go away at some point? or will it always be there in some form?

<comment><USER64> Some right-wingers in the UK (e.g. the ones advocating withdrawing from the EU) would like to see it abolished (and the BBC diminished)

<comment><USER63> What a bummer considering the BBC is one of the greatest.

<comment><USER61> Yep, their world news coverage is pretty good but I especialy love their documentaries. They just blow me away

<comment><USER16> Yeah, but they are spending a lot on soap operas as well...

Those could very well be provided by the private market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If the polls immediately beforehand don't match the election results, why do we assume the polls are wrong? Maybe it's the election that's wrong - <USER2> it's been fixed.

To be clear: I have no other evidence of a fix, nor am I talking only about this election. I'm saying, the question needs to be asked and the problem needs to be dealt with proactively through security and other means.

But here are some thoughts:

* Security requires making an attack more costly than its worth. How much are the results of a major election worth? It's priceless, existential even to some. The fates of nations and billions to trillions of dollars could be on the line. State intelligence services have many motivations to control the outcome. Is it even possible to secure something that valuable?

* Elections have been fixed for generations - probably for as long as there have been elections; it's certainly plausible that someone would try and succeed.

* The systems that need securing are not in a locked room, but spread across a nation, with a large number of operators. Again, very hard to secure. Finally, at least in the U.S., election systems aren't know for their security.

* If it was fixed, would anyone investigate? Would they even want to know? It would undermine the fundamental mechanism of democracy. What if the U.S. presidential election was fixed, what would happen? A do-over?

* Other than smoking guns, what better evidence could we have of a fix than a mis-match between pre-election polls and the outcome?

In short, there's a very strong motive, long-established precedent, and opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER63> Why are the numbers so microscopic compared to the population of the UK? Is it not a direct vote?

<comment><USER52> Numbers only get reported when an electoral district has finished counting. Right now only 5 of 382 districts have reported (and they're mostly small districts, which is why they finished counting so quickly).

<comment><USER63> So are we expecting tens of millions to vote by the end?

Edit: I did some math and figured it out. Thanks for the help, hehehe

<comment><USER52> Somewhere around 25-30 million, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> GBP USD bouncing from 1.40 to 1.50, insane amounts of volatility: [https://www.dailyfx.com/gbp-usd](https://www.dailyfx.com/gbp-usd)

Amateur guestimate, remain will see 1.55, leave will see 1.30

</comment><comment><USER66> Is the vote for a simple majority? In my country, Australia, a referendum must achieve a double majority which means a nationwide majority and a majority in a majority of states. Are there any similar provisions for this referendum?

<comment><USER67> The referendum is not legally binding anyway. It's just a big fancy opinion poll. Albeit, the shit would hit the fan if the government ignored a leave result.

<comment><USER68> The shit will hit the fan if there is no strong majority. And all the polls suggest that it is not going to be a strong majority. 50% of the population is going to be pissed. Too many bridges between both side have been burned.

United will only be in the name of the country after today. This is the beginning of years of trouble ahead.

<comment><USER69> Shit had already hit the fan with the Scottish referendum and the SNP wipeout at last election. The country is split between haves and have-nots, the globalization winners in cities and South and losers elsewhere; the have-nots are easy prey for nationalisms, as it's always the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Here is a good site which converts betting odds to probabilities: [https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html](https://electionbettingodds.com/brexit.html)

</comment><comment><USER61> If this goes with "REMAIN", Does this still leave the possibility of Scotland wanting to "Leave" ? I've read a few articles about it and it seems the Scots were contemplating leaving

<comment><USER71> You have it backwards. The English are on the fence about it, but the Scots want to remain by a huge margin. If the UK votes to leave, it's very likely that it will trigger a re-referendum for Scotland to leave the UK and rejoin the EU.

<comment><USER61> I see intersting, must've got those mixed. We'll see how it goes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Sky news is now projecting OUT, ie given the trend looks like UK will leave EU. Anyway, still many votes to come, margin is around 800k votes so far.

<comment><USER72> 1M votes margin, many news channels are giving it for granted. It woukd be fun to see reporters react to a sudden reversal though

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I think this is a dire inditement for neoliberalism; nearly everyone expected this to go the other way: the markets, the media, the polls... When the stats are analyzed, I assume the people who suffer from globalization will be the ones who made up a bulk of the leave vote. The question is why wouldn't they vote the way they did? Free trade is a lose lose for them, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

</comment><comment><USER74> Having a "tie" key for the region map is a cute detail, but how necessary is it really?

</comment><comment><USER75> Prediction? UK will stay, but it will be uncomfortably close.

<comment><USER76> Seems pretty much impossible for remain to win at this point

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> I'm looking forward to seeing what the web does with the presidential election. The last election I remember paying attention to was Obama's win in 2008, and that was basically just telecast on TV.

</comment><comment><USER78> Can someone give me 3 good reasons why the UK should stay in the EU? Thanks.

<comment><USER78> I just like some well explained answers that's all. Why do people care so much if there are no reasons to stay? Is it the stock market? Is it immigration?

I'm not after an argument, i'm an average joe who works and has a family. Explain to me why important to vote remain, thats all.

<comment><USER79> Requesting exactly three reasons sounds quite trollish...

A Leave vote would probably negatively affect many European research projects. The EU's framework programmes [1] are funding many collaborations and exchange programs. If the UK leaves, non-British researchers might need to to leave the UK, British universities would get isolated from the rest of European academia, long-term projects would have their funding canceled, etc. Even if EU and UK somehow would find a way to continue research cooperations, the uncertainty will have negative consequences right now. While this might not directly affect the average joe, it would negatively affect quite a few people I know.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Resea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Research_and_Technological_Development)

<comment><USER80> I think it's also unlikely that the UK will end up neutral on scientific funding overall. There's no fundamental reason it couldn't, of course: as Leave campaigners have argued, leaving the EU research programmes doesn't require a net reduction in funding for UK researchers, since the UK could simply put an equivalent amount of money into its own scientific funding programmes. Those of us in computing, for example, currently get a good portion of our funding from the EU's framework programmes, and another good portion from the UK's own EPSRC. The UK could keep the total level of funding for science/engineering research constant by setting the EPSRC's new funding level to an amount equal to the sum of previous EPSRC funding, plus the funds previously received by UK-based science/engineering researchers from the EU framework programmes. But will the government actually do so? I predict they will not, and that it won't even be close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Shouldn't the title here be "UK referendum results"?

<comment><USER81> Within the uk it's being referred to as the EU referendum, since we're having a referendum to decide about our fate in the EU. I can see how that's confusing for the rest of the world!

<comment><USER36> Yes, that makes sense in the context of the BBC/UK, but I was confused on HN because I was thinking the EU was holding some referendum today as well.

<comment><USER81> Agreed. It's probably worth having as something like "UK Referendum on the EU"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> With anti-Jewish sentiment, from Mein Kampf and other sources I see, is mainly about some shadowy conspiracy. Anti-Islam sentiment seems to be based on concrete actions (though with fearful, only somewhat-justified extrapolation perhaps) by people identifying with Islam, as well as Islam-majority countries' actions.

EU and US leaders seem to keep on stating there's nothing wrong with Islam, while e.g. Islamic countries still have the death penalty for non-straight or non-cis people. It seems like doublespeak to say it's great, yet not admit the obvious problems. Anyone speaking up and pointing this "emperor's clothing" situation out is going to resonate well with people. I've considered myself very left and liberal for most of my life, yet I'm now viewing these right- wing parties favorably. Maybe I'm getting older (34) and losing my grip, or maybe there's some serious issues.

If I'm getting this wrong, please tell me. I have a hard time seeing how rational people can come to a different result on this matter. Note I'm not saying anything about individual Muslims, just that no one seems to want to recognize the obvious problems that many people's beliefs seem to have.

No offense intended; please let me know what I'm missing. (FWIW I'm against all religion.)

<comment><USER83> "The reason this bath water is so dirty is that there is a baby in it"

Policy matters. The right wing proposal is religious discrimination. In the US we don't make exceptions for religions we don't like. You don't have to like Islam. You can believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western pluralism. If you are American the moment you decide that's a good reason to start getting ok with religious discrimination is when you've given up on the very ideals this country was founded on.

<comment><USER84> It is indeed precisely the wrong response.

By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of civilization.

Really, the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as normal crimes and let the police handle it.

<comment><USER11> > By reinforcing the idea that Islam is a threat to the pluralism of Western > society, we're also reinforcing extremists' narrative about a clash of > civilization.

> the only winning move is not to play. That is, treat terrorist attacks as > normal crimes and let the police handle it.

Generally I agree, but I think it needs to be portrayed as peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions.

<comment><USER82> >peace-loving people of all religions against homicidal maniacs of all religions

I completely agree! But it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had).

It reminds me of programming or tooling debates, where someone jumps in with "well pick the right tool for the right job" or "all software has bugs". It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter -- I mean overall social views like what's described here[1]. Reading those numbers, am I wrong to think it's a clash of civilization?

1: [http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims- religi...](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion- politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)

Again, I'm asking in all honesty, no intention to offend, troll or provoke. I thank you all for your responses.

<comment><USER11> > it's not as if every religion is equal. It'd be strange to say that, for > instance, Jainism, has (or had) anywhere near the violence (even > proportionally) that, say, Christianity or Judaism has (or had).

Lacking data, I'd guess that violence is proportional to power and not to the religious teachings. Janists don't control any large armies (yet). But if a Janist PM of India nuked Pakistan, would you be shocked?

> It feels somewhat dishonest to imply that no group has a larger problem. And > I don't mean terrorism -- that's small enough in raw numbers to not matter > -- I mean overall social views ...

It's impossible that every group has equal problems, of course, but many other factors may determine the social views, as an example: Is the group concentrated in a certain region? I'll bet Mormons have a stronger belief in democracy and civil rights than (pick some religion concentrated in a non- democratic country). Is the group disproportionately poor or rich? Old or young? Well or poorly educated? Does it have a political structure that lends itself to certain types of behavior (for example, I don't know about religions, but for nations democratic structures generally yield more peaceful behavior)? etc.

Think of it from a scientific basis: Can we control for other factors and isolate behavior down to religion? It seems almost impossible. And what is religion? Scripture? Teachings? The local clergy? Family? Personal beliefs - even those change. Within religions, there is enormous variety in observance and belief; very few if any blindly accept all their religion's teachings. It seems impossible to paint the individuals with a broad brush.

And regardless, I think it's unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.

<comment><USER82> >unjust to judge any individual based on anything but their own actions. It's not right to guess what they might do and condemn them for it.

I'm not suggesting condemning anyone. Just condemning their views and making it publicly unacceptable, and perhaps letting that provide some advice to immigration policy. Similar to how the Mormon church was let know in no uncertain terms that racial discrimination was not OK, despite their religion.[1]

A blanket ban (based on what, like you say, professed religion?) is extremely uncomfortable for exactly the reasons you lay out. But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a few people here and there that have "extreme" views.

My only point in this whole thread is that the reason a lot of people might be leaning right is that the left politicians I've seen don't seem to be willing to admit there might be belief issues. No need to condemn anyone, just condemn certain views. Note some ideas are not OK, and that the US or EU's values need to win out.

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

<comment><USER11> > But so is pretending there's nothing objectionable and that there's just a > few people here and there that have "extreme" views.

I'm not pretending; it's just a few. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm pretending - maybe you're wrong.

Can you point to one U.S. immigrant who has stoned another American for adultery (referring to your other post)? Do you have any data of such problems actually existing? It's obviously absurd to claim these things will happen.

I think you are wrong about "belief issues"; it's just an alarmist response to normal human behavior based on a very simplistic model. People in poor, undemocratic countries have less understanding of these things than people brought up in the West. But the U.S. has been integrating those people for hundreds of years - Europe wasn't always a bastion of liberty and democracy - and almost all Americans descend from immigrants from (then) non-democratic countries. I would guess.

Have some faith in the values of democracy, liberty, and tolerance: They do have very broad appeal and are adopted by nations world-wide, from Japan to Indonesia to India to Botswana to Brazil. You might recall many Mideast countries recently had revolts pushing for those things. Finally, most immigrants know the U.S. stands for freedom and choose it.

<comment><USER82> FWIW I don't entirely disagree with your conclusion. But:

>it's just a few

Going off the percentage numbers from Pew and the demos from Wikipedia, I get these numbers for those in favour of death for apostasy: 50M in Egypt. 53M in Bangladesh. Around 110M in Pakistan. That's 200M people right there -- how can that be a "few" in any meaning of the word?

Egypt was one of those countries with revolutions, wasn't it? Jordan is rated the most free or democratic among Arab countries, yet over half the population is in favour of death for leaving a religion.

Unless these numbers are totally wrong (and I'd love to hear that), I'm not sure this is just alarmist. But at any right, it should explain why these right wing politicians are getting support. Someone looks at these surveys, sees these numbers. Then a leader gets on the TV says there's zero problem with Islam, that it's all peaceful people, and only a few extremists. So are the surveys/research simply and utterly wrong?

Maybe it does not matter, and people that migrate will drop those views, or the ones without those views are the only ones that want to come. But I think plenty of people view it dishonest to claim there's no issue with those beliefs in the first place.

Again, thank you for explaining. This thread has given me some points to consider even if I don't agree.

<comment><USER84> So what?

If they want to come to our countries, they have to respect our laws.

They want to stone people? Jail them.

Those nations aren't a threat to our civilization precisely because of how their society works. They distrust themselves far too much to wage a jihad against our civilization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Complete and utter madness. I think it's time for Australia to become a Republic, I'm not sure why we'd want to stick with the U.K. at this point.

<comment><USER17> At least the Australian dollar isn't taking as much of a beating; it's only down to $0.73 from $0.77 - only 5% loss.

<comment><USER85> I think our exporters must be feeling pretty chuffed :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> So we are on the brink of trade wars. If the UK leaves the EU it will start a trade war with the Continent. Meanwhile, if Trump gets elected he'll spur a trade war with Mexico and China. Interesting what that will lead to. Loss of jobs, for one. But what else?

<comment><USER13> Why are you assuming a trade war with Mexico or China would necessarily lead to a loss of jobs as if it were some universal law of physics. Cause the specific media that you watch says it would?

I've never seen a coherent argument explaining how free trade deals have helped anyone but small groups at the expense of larger ones.

In fact, the actual direct evidence of trade deals are this:

1\. Massive job loss for American workers. 2\. Tax losses for the communities whose factories move across borders. 3.No actual job creation in its place based on the labor participation rate (lowest since these deals became common). 4\. Corporate profits at highest level since before these deals. 5\. Wealth inequality approaching depression level era. Interestingly, our gini coefficient tends to approach that of Mexico and China the more we trade with them.

<comment><USER87> I don't agree with you, but you don't deserve to be downvoted just for presenting an argument that's unpopular here. Upvoted for visibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Not many people know that the explicit goal of the early founders of the EU was to institute federalisation by stealth. They distrusted democracy (Hitler was voted into power), and chose to disguise massive political reform as economic.

Monnet - one of the original drivers behind the formation of the EU - had this to say:

"Europe's nations should be guided towards the Super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

To be clear, these weren't some sort of evil oligarchs at work: they wanted there to never be another WW2, another Hitler, etc.

But the nature of the EU, from the outset, was much as its critics today contend.

More at [http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/679277/History-EU- how...](http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/679277/History-EU-how- bureaucrats-seized-power).

 _Correction_ : that is not a quote from Monnet but a summary by a contemporary of his. He actually said:

"Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "… the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would … the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal.

<comment><USER89> Probably worth noting that the Daily Express is decidedly opinionated on the question of EU membership; not exactly an unbiased opinion.

Not that I'm disputing the quote (I have no idea) - but Monnet was not the only person driving the formation of the ECSC, and I'm not sure any of the others involved had the same views.

<comment><USER90> Current EU president Juncker certainly shares the same views. Many of his quotes are very anti-democratic: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10967168/Jean- Claude-Junckers-most-outrageous-political-quotations.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Julian Assange announces WikiLeaks Party's federal election candidates - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/assange-announces-wikileaks-party-election-candidates/4843582 <comment><USER2> Australia is a free country, and voters can vote as they please, but on my part I have completely lost respect for Wikileaks. Decrying the mistakes of the most free, most voter-responsive countries while becoming a fellow traveler with a variety of dictatorships is not what I expected of Wikileaks four years ago or so when a friend suggested that I "like" Wikileaks on Facebook. An Australian commentator

[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/some- secrets-b...](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/some-secrets-best- remain/story-e6frg6z6-1226680991786)

expresses in the commentator's choice of words the thoughts I have about why you and I and the world are not gaining freedom through the actions of Wikileaks and its supporters recently. I respect anyone's right to disagree with me (and would be happy to hear your reasons for your disagreement), but on my part I will be glad to see Wikileaks fizzle out as a movement and as an organization, despite my former support for Wikileaks.

<comment><USER3> I believe he's made a couple of obvious (maybe naive) mistakes, but he has the right mindset, has shown that he is willing to sacrifice a lot. He definitely deserves our support.

IMO, he should just not be left alone at the top of WikiLeaks, it should be a little bit more "democratic". I am of course fully aware that collaboration always means a certain risk of being infiltrated.</comment></comment>


Why Explore Space (1970) - <AUTHOR> http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html <comment><USER2> A colleague of mine asked me why India was now spending billions as well on space probes when they have so many starving.

There are many others as well, who are starving in other ways. Once the immediate need of food and water are met, what do people strive for then? Safety, a place to live? We watch thousands drown in boats trying to cross the ocean to richer lands, even though there was food back home.

If food were the only thing a person wanted in life, we'd have focused on and solved it centuries ago, if it had ever become a problem to begin with.

There must be goals, dreams, things to yearn for once those basic needs are met. The thousands of children the nun cared for will not be content to simply be fed for the rest of their lives. Their lives must mean something, there must be things to strive for.

It's not a question of whether or not we should explore space, it will happen regardless. Societies fed, nurtured, and taught their children, and those children will put their gifts to reach every higher. The child eating porridge out of a dusty bowl today may be building bridges tomorrow, or curing disease, or viewing the distant stars.

Space exploration is towards the apex of our technological achievement, and so it must seem far removed to those addressing more earthly concerns. But it's built on the those foundations.

We'll explore space so long as there are mouths to feed and minds to grow.

<comment><USER3> Another way to think about it is that India is investing in an industry that creates profitable inter-industry linkages. By creating a space program you are creating high paying jobs for educated workers who educate their children and eventually move to other high skilled positions taking their human capital with them. The space program also creates a circus of supporting businesses and industries, which are also "high value added" endeavors. So while being able to produce a spacecraft might not have a _direct_ impact on the well being of the millions of Indians, you now have workers with in demand skills who can use those skills in other jobs, you have the ability to produce high precision machinery that can be used in other high value added applications. (See the 19th century cheese industry in Denmark if you are interested in a historical example.) You are brining money into the economy, which in turn goes back into things like schools and business investments.

Look up Rasumssen and Hirschman for academic literature on this subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So the basic argument goes: "Doing space research/exploration will yield scientific and technological breakthroughs to help our problems here on Earth."

Ok I buy that. I agree we need to spend some % of our societal resources on basic research.

The real question is - what is best bang for the buck when doing basic research? Opponents would argue that space research (specifically exploring other planets) is a very expensive way to do basic research.

I'm all for exploring space because I think humanity needs to, but does the basic research argument really hold?

<comment><USER5> You're leaving out part of his argument which justifies space exploration as inherently valuable beyond its technical and scientific contributions: a paradigm shift of the human condition, brought on by our increased awareness of our place in the universe.

"Although our space program seems to lead us away from our Earth and out toward the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars, I believe that none of these celestial objects will find as much attention and study by space scientists as our Earth. It will become a better Earth, not only because of all the new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of life, but also because we are developing a far deeper appreciation of our Earth, of life, and of man."

Imagine if we found evidence of past life on Mars or Europa. It would change our understanding of life on Earth. You can't make that discovery in a lab.

<comment><USER6> _" Imagine if we found evidence of past life on Mars or Europa."_

In the past, one could imagine. But there are Mars orbiters returning Google Earth quality images of the entire planet. Here's the Curiosity rover seen from Mars orbit.[1] If there was anything living on Mars as big as a patch of lichen, it would have been found by now.

[1] [http://mars.nasa.gov/mro/multimedia/images/?ImageID=7131](http://mars.nasa.gov/mro/multimedia/images/?ImageID=7131)

<comment><USER7> This statement is ridiculous. Evidence of life on Earth millions of years ago is buried deep in the Earth soil. Mars exploration has literally only scratched the surface of the planet, a few inches deep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I believe one of the biggest advantages of space exploration, if done seriously, is that keeps us from stagnating on and inevitably overblowing the various quibbles we have today. I think it's clear that either space exploration or the technology borne of it will have enormous implications for our society; it's simply a matter of time. With that being the case, what good reason could we possibly have to strangle it and push off meaningful progress for another 50, 100, or 200 years? The sooner the better.

As far as the cash needed goes, it's really nothing compared to military expenditures. If NASA had even a fifth of what we spend on our military it would do wonders.

</comment><comment><USER9> This question remains relevant today. Perhaps the best answer to this question is that having a space program is actually a cheap insurance policy against a civilization ending asteroid killing more than 99% of the world's population.

<comment><USER10> Except that precious little funding is actually aimed at this problem.

<comment><USER11> And to anyone else who recognizes this as a problem, please consider donating to the B612 foundation:

[http://sentinelmission.org/](http://sentinelmission.org/)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for providing the link.

But, don't you think it's a little odd that we have multiple national space agencies plus international cooperation that spends billions on exploration projects; while we rely largely on private organizations and donations to fund this important research?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We've explored the solar system. We now know what all the planets look like in some detail. There's no life anywhere off Earth. Not even bacteria. Venus is too hot, Mars is too airless, and everything else is worse. The most worthless real estate on Earth is more habitable than the best real estate off-planet.

As the Economist points out, the final frontier, Pluto, was reached this week.

<comment><USER12> The solar system is to the universe what a grain of sand is to the solar system.

"It would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest that we are alone in the cosmos." [1]

[1] Neil DeGrasse Tyson: [https://youtu.be/JQMuNImYzjc?t=4m21s](https://youtu.be/JQMuNImYzjc?t=4m21s)

<comment><USER11> Even if we are alone, so what? All the more reason to expand life outward.</comment></comment></comment>


The Californian Ideology (1995) - <AUTHOR> http://www.imaginaryfutures.net/2007/04/17/the-californian-ideology-2/ <comment><AUTHOR> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology):

> "The Californian Ideology" is a 1995 essay by English media theorists > Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron of the University of Westminster. Barbrook > describes it as a "critique of dotcom neoliberalism".[1] In the essay, > Barbrook and Cameron argue that the rise of networking technologies in > Silicon Valley in the 1990s was linked to American neoliberalism and a > paradoxical hybridization of beliefs from the political left and right in > the form of hopeful technological determinism.</comment>


What Kagglers Are Using for Text Classification - <AUTHOR> https://mlwhiz.com/blog/2018/12/17/text_classification/ <comment><USER2> It should be noted that CNNs and LSTMs are an _order of magnitude_ slower than things like bag-of-words/fasttext unless you're using an expensive GPU, and the accuracy benefit _if any_ may be marginal in practice.

Kaggle prioritizes chasing a metric, but real-world data science has more considerations.

<comment><USER3> Nobody cares how long it takes to train a model. What matters is prediction speeds, which are comparable (and NLP less likely to require high frequency, where a few more milliseconds matters).

Besides that, the accuracy gains are not marginal anymore (BoW can't compete like it used to, especially with pre-trained models).

<comment><USER4> > Nobody cares how long it takes to train a model.

This isn't true. It depends on your priorities and goals. Machine learning that spends most of its time unable to learn is not real AI. Some of us are interested in sample and energy efficient learning capable of on-line incremental updates immune to catastrophic forgetting. Not just because this is truer to actual learning but because it moves away from being dependent on a handful of companies to do the actual training.

Anticipating some replies: no, transfer learning or meta-learning methods don't really avoid this. In the case of transfer learning, you still have that high coupling between a handful of sources. The down-sides of this is its own discussion. In addition, there are times where the ability to extract local relations can be dulled by the dominant wikipedia and common-crawl representations. Meta-learning gets you fast updates but you still cannot stray too far away from the domains that were met at training time.

> What matters is prediction speeds

I'm not a fan of bag of words models either but a simple dot product is always going to be faster than many matrix multiplies and or convolutions. The implementor should always try these as a base-line and decide if the performance accuracy trade-off is worth it for them.

<comment><USER3> Nobody in business cares if you are doing proper AI or dumb curve fitting. What matters is the complexity (engineering debt) and performance (accuracy, robustness).

Online learning, sample - and energy efficiency are unrelated to training times. Like said: nobody cares if you ran Vowpal Wabbit for 1 hour or 100 hours, as long as you are not constantly babysitting it and calling that paid work (or have the unusual requirement of daily retraining while using an online model).

> simple dot product is always going to be faster than many matrix multiplies

If you care about this (because it is profitable), you rewrite in lower-level language or predict with cloud GPU (which will be at least comparable to simple dot product, while adding performance)

<comment><USER5> > Nobody in business cares if you are doing proper AI or dumb curve fitting.

What is proper AI? It's all dumb curve fitting right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not sure why anyone would use 2D CNNs for processing text when there is no spatial correlation in the embedding features. Recent work such as [https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01271](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01271) show that for most tasks, 1D CNNs outperform recurrent architectures while being faster to train

<comment><USER7> This is just a bug in their code. The paper they cite uses 1D convolutions. Though, I suppose having an unused dimension only really hurts efficiency.

<comment><USER8> > Though, I suppose having an unused dimension only really hurts efficiency.

That might not be true as it might increase bias and thus might need a more careful hyperparameter tuning to avoid overfitting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We have done extensive testing in the context of chatbot intent classification and in our particular problem nothing (including CNN, LSTM, fasttext plus LUIS, Watson and other proprietary classifiers) has been able to beat a simple linear model trained on char n-gram features.

<comment><USER10> I've seen the same things in the models I've built. For basic intent classification simpler models seem to be more accurate, not to mention they train faster and require less memory. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on shiny complex neural network architectures, even when simple models work just fine.

<comment><USER11> > There seems to be a lot of emphasis on shiny complex neural network > architectures, even when simple models work just fine.

It's resume-driven-development for data scientists.

I've never seen an interviewer impressed with the fact that a job was performed using not-deep learning, but say that you used deep learning (despite how spurious it might be) and they light up like it's Christmas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder how FastText (essentially word2vec + word & char n-grams + other stuff) stacks up against these algorithms.

In my own tests on my own corpuses, CPU-based FastText is faster to train and produces significantly better results (precision/recall) than the GPU-bound CNN algorithms that I've tried, but have not compared it against RNN techniques.

<comment><USER13> I've found that some CNNs consistently beat fasttext in terms of model quality. But I've beaten those CNNs and fasttext by doing transfer learning with ULMFit and fasts I. But if we're talking training speed, fasttext is indeed aptly named.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Three methods and no idea how I would choose between the three of them aside randomly trying each one and measuring performance.

(Not for winning kaggle but for an actual problem)

<comment><USER14> "The information you'd need to choose is included in there. If you're doing this professionally, you should strive to have enough of a high-level understanding of NLP to be able to make these decisions without having a rubric handed to you on a silver platter. In a nutshell, though: Strive to use the simplest model that will get the job done. Less elaborate models are easier to understand and (usually) less prone to things like overfitting, so they'll be more tractable to work with in a business context. To that end: Use a convolutional net when you can get away with a small, fixed-size context window. Use an LSTM when you need long-term memory. Attention can be expensive, so you use it when you have cause to believe you can gain a lot by giving selective attention to features, and have both a lot of training data and a lot of computing resources.

It's also worth considering that you might be best off going with none of these options. Cool as deep learning is, I've personally never actually been able to justify using it in a professional setting. Simpler models such as logistic regression and decision trees have characteristics that are near- useless for getting you to the top of a Kaggle leaderboard, but can be indispensable when working on many real-world business problems"

\- anonymous comment reply

<comment><USER14> This is the kind of context that is very helpful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Seems like the article is mistaken on one part.

Attention was first coined in this paper (as far as I know): [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0473v7.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0473v7.pdf)

The second page of the introduction of the "Hierarchical Attention Networks for Document Classification" paper mentioned in the article even cites it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I was really hoping to see a summary comparison of the performance(s) of the different models at the end, e.g. accuracy vs. complexity vs. execution time, etc.

Here's a summary from the end of each section...

1\. TextCNN: "This kernel scored around 0.661 on the public leaderboard."

2\. BiDirectional RNN: 0.671

3\. Attention Models: 0.682

<comment><USER17> Thank you, that's exactly what I was scrolling through the bickering to find.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It would be nice to see how these methods compare to the classical methods based on word occurrences.

<comment><USER19> Kaggle is a pretty serious natural-selection environment for machine learning algorithms. Basically, if bag-of-words worked better, the contest winners would still use it.

<comment><USER18> One issue is the kind of problem.

I remember getting 95%-ish accuracy with BoW and the SVM circa 2004 when it came to questions like "is this paper about astrophysics or organic chemistry?"

In that case you have a distinct vocabulary for different topics and it is hard to beat BoW.

Sentiment analysis, on the other hand, is where BoW goes to die since now "not good" means something very different than "good", and even simple heuristics like treating "not X" as a term that is different from "X" give limited gain because negation is expressed with constructions like "i don't believe that is good" and there is no k-word window that you reliably catch negation in since there isn't a limit on how complex sentences are.

There is also the question of "is the improvement between method A and method B worth it?" For instance the Netflix prize was much celebrated because some brilliant people busted their ass to go from 92% to 95% accuracy on movie recommendations. In the end the algorithm proved to be too complex for the value it created. (eg. Who would notice that they got 8 bad recommendations instead of 5 out of a hundred? An additional half a bad recommendation out of 10?)

The real "Netflix optimization problem" is how to spend as little on acquiring content as possible while motivating people to keep their subscriptions and that is something Netflix will keep closer to their chest and not promote a public competition on. (eg. if it were valuable why would they let competitors know about it?)

<comment><USER19> Good point, I should have written "for machine learning algorithms on problems that the industry is currently interested in".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> No mention of ULMFiT? [http://nlp.fast.ai/classification/2018/05/15/introducting- ul...](http://nlp.fast.ai/classification/2018/05/15/introducting-ulmfit.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> Why not just use a 1d conv over the sequence of embeddings?

</comment><comment><USER22> This was really interesting and insightful thanks!

</comment><comment><USER23> I already don't like humans parsing my words half the time, I'm confident I'll hate most algorithms.

Nothing inherently wrong with these methods, just a lot of possibilities for misuse in my eyes.</comment>


A new productivity app -- tell me my baby is ugly (or not) - <AUTHOR> http://youtu.be/XcKQ2DuhySQ

<comment><USER2> You crammed a lot into that video but it looks pretty interesting to me. I especially like the work tracking feature. It would be great for tracking and increasing focus over time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, yes, I am pretty amateur at presenting so I may have gone a little too quickly. I was trying to be brief because I respect my viewer's time but the app has a broad-ish scope. Anyway, anything you could suggest elaborating on?

In any case, thanks, for checking it out</comment></comment>


Yes, It's True: Women Really Are Freezing Their Tails Off at Work - <AUTHOR> https://www.yahoo.com/health/yes-its-true-women-really-are-freezing-their-125845785067.html

<comment><AUTHOR> > a man might prefer a 70-degree office environment while his female co-worker > is most comfortable at 75 degrees.

Our office is at 75-78F - company saves money on energy. The women in the office, except those sitting right under vents, seems to feel ok, some still wearing sweaters/jackets (Palo Alto hills, July) while we, men, feel and look more like sleepy cooked lobsters. Some try to find nooks and crannies under vents, etc... With your back sweating into the chair your productivity is that of a cooked lobster too.

The merciless asymmetry is that feeling cold one can put on more clothes while feeling hot one is condemned to sweat.

</comment><comment><USER2> in the first few paragraphs: "mild cold exposure may boost insulin sensitivity in those with Type 2 diabetes." (said as a reason why we should be concerned that women are cold).

\-- Type 2 diabetes is insulin resistance ... boosting insulin sensitivity is a good thing. I have now lost all trust in the author and the remainder of the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> you're right - it links to the original paper titled "Short-term cold acclimation improves insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus"</comment></comment>


I plotted my heart rate while attending last night's game - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/PtPQ9mn.png

<comment><USER2> Was this while using the Apple Watch ?

I'm curious as to what other devices you could use to log your heart rate ?</comment>


Ask HN: USB cable, laptop, phone, how can I take a photo? - <AUTHOR> I normally wouldn't post this here, as HN isn't a support forum.  However, my Google-fu has failed me utterly.  Either that, or the information just isn't out there.
Or it's impossible.
I have a laptop, a USB cable, and a phone, and I want to get the laptop to cause the phone to take a photo.  How can the laptop, via the USB cable, trigger the phone to take a photo?
Added in edit: I have two phones I'd like to do this with, one is Android, the other is a Blackberry.
Thanks in advance, <comment><USER2> [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24747665/android- command...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24747665/android-command-line- photo) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for those - I'll chase them down and see what happens. At the very least it will give me more specific terms to search for.

Other hints still welcome.</comment></comment>


Introducing Crowd and Open Source Development Sundays experiment - <AUTHOR> http://sbtdev.blogspot.com/2014/03/introducing-crowd-open-source-software.html

<comment><AUTHOR> First time poster here. Have been lurking for a long time (I guess I would have to blame /r/programming for that). Hopefully people are interested! Any feedback will be greatly appreciated, since the purpose of the project is to create a community, nothing matters more than the community's feedback.</comment>


Go 1.3.1 released - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/CF5wyVEjEaY

<comment><USER2> Direct link to the commit logs: [https://code.google.com/p/go/source/list?name=release- branch...](https://code.google.com/p/go/source/list?name=release- branch.go1.3&r=40272ab1339ab2fb9e7160483e5e5d42d6b7e810)</comment>


New GitHub Status Site - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1240-new-status-site

<comment><USER2> Looks like they were smart and are using Rackspace for the main github and AWS for the status site. That's 101 for status sites.

I slightly wonder if it's worth putting status sites in a separate domain as well, for resilience against DNS outages or misconfiguration. Obviously you'd also want status.example.com for example.com too, but having some standard way for services to report uptime (to users and to machines, including deep API information, not just "can I ping it" would be nice.

It would be nice if someone set up "arbitraryservicedowntime.net" and did things like github.com.arbitraryservicedowntime.net". But then you'd need some way to associate and promote the independent URLs. Just doing github.com and github.net might work, if github.net is otherwise unused.

Pingdom kind of solves this for just ping, but doesn't work for deep status, causes, ETTR, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a bit clueless about network resilience, but doesn't using the url status.github.com imply the status and main website share a DNS service? We have seen name resolution problems in the past so would a DNS problem that affected github.com would also affect status.github.com?

<comment><USER4> _doesn't using the url status.github.com imply the status and main website share a DNS service?_

No, but in this case they do.

 _would a DNS problem that affected github.com also affect status.github.com?_

Yes, but DNS is very easy to harden against outages, it's redundant by design.

Also Github seems to rent their nameservers from dyn.com who have a pretty good track record of not screwing up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I liked the "Battle Station Fully Operational" before.

<comment><USER6> Yeah I miss the changing Octocat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They link to <https://status.github.com> which doesn't work (you have to go to <http://status.github.com>). Bit of egg on their face, sadly.

<comment><USER8> The blog post has been updated to go to <http://status.github.com>, my apologies about that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you know if there are plans to make it available on <https://status.github.com> as well?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I have the HTTPS Everywhere Chrome extension, which (almost) always works but breaks here. Made it look like the status page was down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's two posts on status pages on the HN homepage right now. This and Balanced:

\- <http://blog.balancedpayments.com/status-page/>

\- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4877643>

The hardest problems to me are properly monitoring and computing downtime. Heroku's uptime calculation uses time[1], which breaks down for an API where it should be more about the number of requests.

Any idea how Github is measuring downtime? Is there a difference in Github's measurement for when there's low usage vs. going down during peak hours? How are sporadic errors computed vs. a complete outage?

[1] [https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/heroku- status#uptime-c...](https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/heroku- status#uptime-calculation)

</comment><comment><USER11> Right now I get an "The server refused the connection.". Not good.

[edit] ok, use http, not https...

<comment><USER12> The status site now handles both HTTP and HTTPS gracefully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I miss the whimsical nature of the previous status page (it seemed to fit with GitHub's "voice" better). But I'm guessing this version isn't going to crash when GitHub does (<https://github.com/blog/1261-github-availability-this- week>). Hopefully it's statically generated.

</comment><comment><USER14> Do you have negative letter-spacing on large counters? "662ms" under "98th perc. web response time" has virtually no spacing between the glyphs. Looks messed up, border-line illegible. That's on Mobile Safari.

Looks great overall though. Nice job, guys.

</comment><comment><USER15> The visual design and choice of typeface are both excellent.

Great job.

</comment><comment><USER16> I love the board's minimalistic approach - excellent job!</comment>


Samsung Kills The Seven-Inch Tablet Category It Created - <AUTHOR> http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/samsung-kills-the-seven-inch-tablet-category-it-created/ls-the-seven-inch-tablet-category-it-created/

<comment><USER2> One manufacturer ending a product line does not a category killer make.</comment>