Financial Network Topology - <AUTHOR> http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10004 <comment><USER2> This applies to financial network topographic analysis that old reformer adage... "If one comes upon a gate and wishes to clear it away, I first ask them what purpose the gate may serve? If they can not answer that, then they are not ready to remove the gate." There seems to be a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt around making sweeping changes to the financial system based on this recent, and perhaps not fully tested, theory.

<comment><USER3> I'm not a fan of that quote. It's actually quite common for the gate's purpose to have been forgotten or for the gate to be some pathological emergent side effect of something else. Not everything is necessary or rational. In old systems there is often a huge amount of "cruft" that simply does not need to be there.

Edit: I do believe trying to explain the reason for a thing is a worthwhile exercise, but failure to do so does not prove a thing's value.

<comment><USER4> My way of expressing the same thing would be something like this (I'm not sure if it is an improvement, though):

Old methods are not automatically bad because you don't understand them or why they are used. New methods are not automatically good.

If you want to change something, try to prove both that your change isn't worse in any important way and that is notably better in some meaningful way. Understanding where the original method came from helps you prove the right things.

<comment><USER2> And that is the root of the article's thesis: the current regulator has basically said that if we had technology X back in 2007, none of this would have happened; this idea is a dangerous presumption against the adaptability of the system based in partial models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That title only makes sense in English if you manage to read to the bottom 2 paragraphs of the linked article.

Word salad...

<comment><USER6> We updated the submission title to be less link-baity, but we're open to suggestions for a better one.

<comment><USER5> Financial Network Topology and "Women of System": A Dangerous Combination.

The longer article, I finally figured out that "women of system" was a phrase quote. It's just not clear without quotes what those linguistic pieces were all doing in conjunction with the other words.</comment></comment></comment>


Reasons not to buy Apple's new iPhone 4G - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7800676/10-reasons-not-to-buy-Apples-new-iPhone-4G.html

<comment><USER3> I have a Windows Mobile phone, and after that painful experience, I'll most likely get an iPhone 4g, though I'd consider an Android too...

1) It's expensive: Agree

2) It's anti-technology: no surprise there from Apple.

3) No Flash: Putting a proprietary feature onto a proprietary platform - <USER2> wrongs don't make a right. Elsewhere, I read that Flash on Android is slow and a battery hog. It feels that this is less about wanting Flash on the iPhone, and more about a backlash against the iPhone's closed platform per se.

4) No multitasking: Tried multitasking on a Windows Mobile? The phone reduces to a crawl. I looked around Android Apps and noticed quite a few memory and task management utilities - I want to use my phone, and not think about killing apps hogging CPU/RAM in the background.

5) Its battery life is terrible: Possibly because people play with their iPhones throughout the day. Possibly because power consumption is tweaked for performance rather than economy. Possibly because users are accustomed eye- candy interfaces that impose much overhead.

6) Developing apps for it is costing you money: At least when I use that app, it has a high probability of working. My WinMob has these browsers: Opera, Opera 10, Skyfire, IE, Opera Mini, Opera Mini 10, Bolt. Why do I have so many? Because none of them are much good at rendering reliably. I'm by no means a fanboy - much the opposite, I'm quite an Apple Disliker - but I want Things That Work!

7) It comes with offensively bad headphones: Most likely true

8) It's not very well designed: "It's a computer that happens to have a phone bolted on" - as are most smartphones now.

9) It charges for satnav: I didn't know this. But I thought Google Maps had turn by turn satnav?

10) Those iPod docks are holding back better technologies: Completely agree. Get rid of that silly connector and use the micro USB connector!

</comment><comment><USER3> I should also ask... Ben, did you post this link because you agree or disagree with the article?

What phone do you have and what will you get next?

</comment><comment><USER4> This article is nothing short of hilarious.

Bad headphones? Dealbreaker.</comment>


Game-changing improvements in the works for U.S. weather prediction - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/15/game-changing-improvements-in-the-works-for-u-s-weather-prediction/

<comment><USER2> If we can build a space station together, why don't we pool our resources with EU to create a larger supercomputer with even greater resolution/accuracy? It seems like a tremendous duplication effort and delay (until 2015) when we could work together to improve things immediately.

<comment><AUTHOR> When it comes to weather models it's probably a good idea to have at least two of them for validation and performance comparisons. These things are (a) quite complex (in the order of 100k-1M LOC), (b) important for humanity for various reasons and (c) not as expensive as you might think.

To give you an idea, for the price of one F-22 fighter jet one could go and build the world's best weather prediction, including the price of the supercomputer (as in the world's fastest one) as well as the initial software development.</comment></comment>


Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363102433/police-can-seize-and-sell-assets-even-when-the-owner-broke-no-law <comment><USER2> Similar NYTimes article posted yesterday with a bit more substance: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use- department-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department- wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html)

I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.

<comment><USER3> The practice originally seemed to be in place to give discretion to officer to deal with druglords and people like that since proving everything is court is very hard, but since the incentives are all wrong(departments keep the proceeds), it seems to be quite abused.

A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.

<comment><USER4> I read in a comment on a related article yesterday that this was tried in Utah, in fact here's the link[1], tldr it was not successful at all.

The operative question would seem to be, how does one write a blank check to law enforcement to seize property with no judicial oversight or lawful reason required, but then make them promise by law to give it away rather than simply use it for their own personal/departmental reasons?

If you want to empower someone to be a thug and take peoples stuff, you have to recognize that Robin Hood was actually a work of fiction and consider that maybe nobody is going to actually do that. Apparently in Utah, everyone ignored the new law -- police, prosecutors, judges, the press, and even the voting public who passed the original ballot initiative, failed to hold anyone to account when the next election time came around.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582659](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582659)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Washington Post provided excellent coverage in September:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop- and-seize/)

IIRC, it was this article that described police being trained on how to obtain valuable assets, and police collaborating on message boards:

One example was an officer posting on a message board a car's description and license plate, and telling officers in a neighboring jurisdiction that the car was coming their way, and that he was unable to justify seizure when he stopped the driver but that they might have better luck.

EDIT: And here is the ACLU's page on the issue: [https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset- forfeit...](https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture)

<comment><USER6> The New Yorker's piece on civil forfeiture published last year, "Taken", is also excellent and also prompted a lot of comments on Hacker News.

The article: [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken?currentPa...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken?currentPage=all) Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6161465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6161465)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.

<comment><USER8> > They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their > actual job

So.... if the police do a bad job; and crime is rife; we get rid of the police department? Or conversely, if there is no crime, we give more and more money to the police?

<comment><USER9> Those are both extremely fallacious measures of whether the police are doing a good job.

<comment><USER10> Fallacious = based on a mistaken belief.

synonyms: erroneous, false, untrue, wrong, incorrect, faulty, flawed, inaccurate, inexact, imprecise, mistaken, misinformed, misguided, misleading, deceptive, delusive, delusory, illusory, sophistic, specious, fictitious, spurious, fabricated, distorted, made up, trumped up

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?

<comment><USER12> As @roymurdock posted, the NY Times article has a video of the guy being quite explicit in the "benefits": [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use- department-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department- wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html)

<comment><USER13> He describes how excited the cops were to steal a guy's car. He even says "and _gulp_ we had to give it back" because they didn't follow procedure. Put aside the inanity involved in stealing people's property in cases like this, it's a pure greed motive where cops are looking at the population to go raiding.

They sound little better than privateers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/](http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. ^ Top

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

It would be interesting to see how other countries do asset seizure to compare how they maintain compliance with the UNHDR.

</comment><comment><USER15> There was also a good bit on last week tonight about this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm curious why libertarians around here and Tea Party followers elsewhere do not make more noise over this issue. It's an honest question; my hypothesis: It's because the intrusion is from the right and not from the left.

<comment><USER16> Although I don't typically use the word "libertarian" to describe myself, I do run in libertarian circles and I think this is arguably the single biggest issue of concern (other candidates include foreign policy and the prison system).

Go to Liberty Forum or Porcupine Festival and you'll see not just one but multiple studied experts discussing both the particulars of these policies and also strategies for achieving change.

Rand Paul (whom isn't nearly radical enough for my palate but carries the "Tea Party" label arguably more than anyone else) is by far the loudest member of either house of congress on this issue.

As far as I know, Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party candidate in 2012 and former New Mexico Governor) was the only viable candidate for President (defined here as being on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of victory) who talked about this issue in his stump speech.

I'm not sure what more you want?

As an aside: Gary Johnson is a truly wonderful human being and an incredible elite athlete. I've been fortunate to get to hang out with him on about half a dozen occasions and, dare I say, become a personal friend, albeit not a close one (yet :-)). He's a really warm person who radiates amazingly positive energy (something you don't necessarily expect from a Libertarian) and is full of really intense entrepreneurial drive. He's planning a run again for 2016; be sure to at least give his material a chance.

<comment><USER5> Interesting. I read a lot of news and I didn't know Rand Paul talked about it.

<comment><USER16> Really? It's one of his trademark issues.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2014/07/25/r...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2014/07/25/rand-paul-introduces-bill-to-reform-civil-asset- forfeiture/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mark-r What surprises me is that this hasn't been declared unconstitutional. I thought you couldn't be deprived of property without due process? I know it has survived numerous court cases so I'm baffled.

<comment><USER17> it's almost as if the original american political ideals are corrupt enough to afford chattel property rights over human beings and aren't actually built on ethical grounds

<comment><USER16> I think "it's almost as if" is an unduly passive-aggressive way to begin a comment, but I agree that the thought you are expressing warrants discussion in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Matt Taibbi has an interesting book out "The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap."

There are issues in the US beyond just the seizing of assets, the question is how do we fix it so that everyone can prosper? The idea of the United States is still awesome, but have we as a country ever come close to the ideal? Is it possible to reach the ideal?

<comment><USER19> It might not be possible, to reach the ideal. But what I currently see is, that justice, freedom and democracy are loosing very fast in all the world around us and fastest in those countries that once where the first democratic nations.

It is totally frightening and a bad sign for all humanity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> _The concept is that police are, in theory, bringing charges against the property. They are saying this property is being used in the furtherance of a crime._

So where's the crime? Who's been arrested/convicted/sentenced?

</comment><comment><USER21> I heard of an older Asian lady (first generation immigrant) who lost her 3-bed house somewhat this way.

She divorced from her husband and she ended up with the house. To make extra income, she rented her room to someone. That person happened to be a drug dealer or something like it and when that person was convicted, the house was also dragged into the case and she ended up losing the house to police.

I couldn't believe it and thought she may have been exaggerating but hearing this news, maybe she was telling the truth...

</comment><comment><USER22> What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how much money I have?

<comment><USER23> Whatever you want. You don't have to answer him, and he can't search you unless he arrests you.

If he's going to arrest you it's probably best not to lie though. You can always say I'm not sure.

If you do have more than $1,000 in cash don't allow him to search your car.

<comment><USER24> Sorry, but that is bad advice.

Do not talk to the police, ever! If they arrest you, you only ask for the reason of the arrest and for legal counsil (a lawyer) and nothing more!

If they give you a ticket, keep your mouth shut, receive it and present it to a lawyer.

Do not consent to a search, ever! Even if you think you have nothing on you!

The police is not your friend!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In Phoenix, Arizona if you are arrested they will automatically impound any and all $100 bills. You have to go to the police impound station to get them back. You can have several hundred in $20's though and they will hold it at the county jail (where Detention Officers have been caught stealing from the cash safe) and give it back when you're released. I never really understood why.

</comment><comment><USER26> My only question here is that how this does not violate constitutional rights of citizens for possessing property and having a due process of law? Why Supreme Court has upheld these laws all these years? Wikipedia has good article on civil forfeiture[1] but fails to answer this question. All I can discern from there is that these laws were created 200 years ago to seize ships of owners who can't be prosecuted easily. Apparently supreme court has distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. For the former, due process by a judge is required while for former it's not because a property gets charged for participating in crime instead of a person. This sounds more dumber than "corporation is a person" thing that they rules before. Who is supposed to protect the intent of constitution now?

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

</comment><comment><USER27> "Possession is nine-tenths of the law"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine- tenths_of_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine- tenths_of_the_law)

</comment><comment><USER28> Discussion on the New York Times article yesterday - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8581889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8581889)

</comment><comment><USER29> Shouldn't the aclu be all over this?

</comment><comment><USER30> In theory we live in a democracy that should make fixing this easy.

<comment><USER31> It makes fixing it _possible_. It's unreasonable to expect that getting millions of people to agree to take specific actions to effect a very precise change in laws will be "easy".

<comment><USER30> Do you imagine it would be difficult to convince a citizen the government shouldn't be allowed to steal their property?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What kind of training get the police men? Is it police training or training how to be a crook?

There is one saying in the bible -- I don't want to preach, but some wisdom can be even found in old books -- "A man reaps what he sows".

It seems, this state sows crooks.

It worries me, that these things are known now for several years at it seems, but all attempts of change have been blocked.

To differentiate between right and wrong belongs to the building blocks of society -- of all societies. But you can also see in history and in other nations, what the result is, when such building blocks are missing or when they are repeatedly violated. That is something that makes me fear for the US. When they train those people, that shall uphold the differentiation between right and wrong to be wrongdoers, when legislation fails, because there are to many interest groups, when even judges are judging for money .... the way downhill will be steep!

Already today, as others also posted, the trust into officials is rapidly going downhill in society. Broader and broader parts of society disband legal living, because legality is also often only an excuse for wrong doing. The officials give the example and the complete nation goes downhill step for step.</comment>


Ask YC: What email/calendar/contacts solution do you use to organize yourself? - <AUTHOR>

How do you organize yourself? What email/calendar/to-do programs do you use?<p>I'm having trouble finding a good solution because I use both a PC and a Mac and use my iPhone's calendar extensively. So far, MobileMe seems like the best option... but I'm very hesitant of switching from free email (gmail) to a paid service (mobileme). I'm sure someone here has somewhat similar needs and I'd love to find out how you guys are handling situations such as this (and organizing yourself in general). <comment><USER2> Have you thought about a personal Exchange service? I'm not sure if the iPhone supports contacts/calendar sync via Exchange yet but if it does I would definitely take that route. You'll accomplish what MobileMe will give you, plus you're fully covered if/when you change phones.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have thought about it (and calendar/contacts do sync on the iphone), but I'm not sure if it's worth the money. I thought many people would have similar problems, and so wanted to find out what they do.

<comment><USER2> Well I imagine it depends on which provider you chose. I now use BES/Exchange but prior to that I was using mail2web and was very happy with it. Their customer service is somewhat lacking but I always found their services to be reliable and fast. In terms of expense, mail2web starts at $4.95/month = $59.40/year versus $99/year for MobileMe. There are plenty other personal Exchange providers to choose from as well.</comment></comment></comment>


How I burned $10M so you don't have to - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/reboot-leadership-resiliency/how-i-burned-10-million-dollars-so-you-dont-have-to-4e9e83754ce9#.kq0c7y3y7 <comment><USER2> The article was a lot better than I expected to be given the slightly click- baity title.

The key note for me is that move fast and break things is a motto that works well in a software/systems context where the cost of failure is low. However, when dealing with business, the cost of failure can mean layoffs and serious disruptions to peoples' lives.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good read. It is instructive to see how a business on a slow ramp can get off- rails by forcing strategic growth decisions prematurely and without sufficient reflection

> We searched frantically for a head of sales. It took three months to find > someone, and she only took the job on the condition we open a second office > in North Carolina. We opened that office. Grew it to 14 people. Then, when > it was quickly clear spreading a sales team across two locations so early > was crazy, we shut it down. All within 12 weeks. There's $500k eviscerated.

So there was a LA based sales team that was working and the customers I assume are media companies. The sales model working was individuals making direct sales. Then in NC ramping up another team so big and so fast? Another model in another place? Where was the board providing a check here? The problem here was not too senior too early but getting someone senior that was not properly aligned and letting that person dictate the sales strategy.

Enterprise sales is hard. Cycles are typically long. Some sales people are gifted and some come with well established connections. Initial success can be a factor of the latter - then comes the chasm. Judging velocity and scaling up can be non-trivial.

<comment><USER4> >> We hired too senior too early.

This is more a sign of a junior "CEO"...</comment></comment>


Private equity firms are increasingly buying up doctors' offices - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/06/private-equity-firms-are-increasingly-buying-up-doctors-offices-what-does-that-mean-for-doctors-or-for-patients/ <comment><USER2> Is this good for quality of service?</comment>


Ask HN: Freelancers, who are your customers? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN!
I'm a web developer, and I want to try to become a freelancer.
After some research, I have found some people interested to work with me. They are individuals (not companies), and interested in small projects (blog, small e-commerce, CMS, etc.)
I think that's a good start! But now I'm wondering if it's possible to make enough money by only doing work for individuals.
Should I start right now to focus on companies? Or doing small websites for individuals is enough? Can focusing only on these small projects can eventually bring me bigger customers in the end?
TL;DR As a freelancer, who are your best customers? Individuals, startups, small companies, big companies, etc?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> My approach has been to have one 20-hour-a-week engagement at a time, typically 1-6 months long, plus a few 10-hour-a-month long-term relationships. I think of it like filling a jar with rocks: one big one, and a few pebbles. That helps me get higher utilization (i.e. closer to billing 40 hours a week), and in freelancing consistency is a massive help to your revenue. A lot of my "rocks" are startups or post-startups. Right now one of my "pebbles" is 5-20 hours a month via an agency that specializes in PHP but subcontracts to me when they need Rails or JS MVC work. They've also sent me a couple "rocks" in the past. Perhaps if you developed a specialized skillset (maybe JS MVC?) you could also let agencies know that you're available if that is a gap in their in-house expertise.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you considered taking the work from the individuals and getting referrals & recommendations?

<comment><USER4> You can also use these first few projects as pieces for your portfolio. On top of that, building up buffer income and a client pipeline are good ideas.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What Would You Study if You Could Redo College - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone, this is my first post on HN, but I've been reading for a couple of years now. I'm entering my senior year of high school and have been thinking a lot about colleges and what I want to study. I've always enjoyed math and science so I figure I'll probably end up in some sort of engineering career. Additionally, I've been teaching myself Python and really enjoying it; I try to read programming books and write programs for an hour or two each day.
I'm wondering what you all would major in if you had the chance to redo college knowing what you know now. I'd also like to know what your opinion is of CS as a major. Is a CS degree useful for learning to write code better, or does it make more sense to focus on some other engineering field and learn to program on your own to be more well rounded? I'm a little worried that getting a CS degree would give me less options than, say getting a mechanical or electrical engineering degree and learning to program on the side.
Thanks for reading <comment><USER2> I did CS and Philosophy in college. If I did it over, I'd spend more time on Math.</comment>


How to make more good decisions - <AUTHOR> https://blogofjake.com/2020/07/23/how-to-make-more-good-decisions/ <comment><USER2> > Bad decision-makers who make slow and thoughtful decisions are still bad > decision-makers. They need to make better decisions.

Is this gpt-3 output or something?

Otherwise, if the best insight this guy can come up with is that you can make more good decisions by making better decisions, then I am concerned.</comment>


How to Fix Web's Bloat and Readability Problem - <AUTHOR> https://dxwc.gitlab.io/2018/08/computer/thunk/web-bloat-and-readability-problem/ <comment><USER2> Here's how I deal with the bloat and readability problem on hackernews: [https://github.com/damng/hackernews-rss-with-inlined- content](https://github.com/damng/hackernews-rss-with-inlined-content)

</comment><comment><USER3> If the proposed solution is to make a new browser, why don't we just use Dillo?

<comment><AUTHOR> Using dillo would be similar to turning off javascript, breaking many websites. The proposed solution is to avoid using html/js/css at all and use a different format like markdown for things that are meant for reading and give user (instead of developers) full control over all the looks.

<comment><USER3> How can one contribute? How secure and performant is it compared to js?

How much of a middle ground should we strike between user-friendliness and bloat?

At the very least, landing sites should be bloat free pages that direct you to their more bloated counterparts</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Am I wrong to spend 'extra time' on things? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a Developer of web apps working at a startup, and I'm passionate about UI design. I regularly get praised for apps I make because of the extra touches and good design, but primarily I'm developing some sophisticated apps with 90% of the time spent on the backend code. At this point most of the apps are R&D prototypes. It kind of makes me feel bad as other developers who are way smarter than me don't get any praise for just delivering the functionality which was asked for in the spec; either they don't have the UI skills to show off, they don't think a good UI is important, or they are more experienced and less rebelious!
If I'm creating an app which may take 10 hours, I'll make sure I spend a good hour or two on top of that making it look great and usable! These two things are never asked for, quite the opposite in fact. Sometimes I do this bit in my own time.
The problem is, on every project now I'm getting told by my peers "don't spend any extra time on this", "nothing fancy", "knock this up as quick as possible, we'll do design if the client likes it". I often ignore this advice, as sometimes these apps are demos sales guys are showing off to prospective clients, if I didn't provide a good design then I wouldn't be motivated to do my job, I just don't agree with the decision. To back this up even more, when I disobey this advice I don't get told off, often the feedback is very positive simply because of the 'extra time' I've put in! If the sales team come back with good feedback, it cancels out the imminent telling off I was about to get from my technical manager. It seems no matter how important I prove the UI design is, I'm getting increasingly pressured to forget it, and if it were upto my peers every app I produce would have no stylesheet, Times new Roman fonts on a white background with raw HTML tables!
This is starting to affect my motivation and I'm constantly hiding photoshop and anything with color on it if someone important is looking! I need a job where spending a little time to make things usable and attractive is ok. Am I being too rebelious here? Should I raise this formally with my manager?
Thanks in advance for the help guys. <comment><USER2> You need to talk to your manager and bring up your concerns, there's no reason to continue being "on separate pages", you need to both get on the same page. If they are telling you to do one thing, you do another, and then get praised for it, and this is happening consistently you need to bring it up to understand exactly whats going on, either they really don't care that much and are leaving it to your discretion or there could be friction developing behind the scenes. At my current job we have weekly one on one meetings with the manager to bring any issues up and something like this would be a good topic for a one on one discussion. You don't want to get in the habit of doing more work than is needed, also, if you want to pursue UI development then consider finding a job that wants and appreciates that. The more complex the server- side coding becomes the less room there is for a "jack of all trades" so it really just depends on where you want your focus to go in your career. That said, a UI guy who has programming experience and understanding of server-side development, in my opinion, is always going to have a leg up on someone who doesn't

</comment><comment><USER3> It's odd how we all agree that Apple's relentless focus on quality - from the very first day when Woz spent all those hours creating beautiful internal hardware that no one every saw to today's Apple that frets about creating hi- fi prototypes with actual data and not lorem ipsum - is key to their success and yet we seldom invest resources in achieving that level of quality.

On the other hand, things work different in startup land. You need to make sure that they work you put in has actual value and doesn't steal time from other, high priority work. This sometimes means creating stuff that might not reflect our level of expertise or be align with our ideals.

Ultimately, you need to find a balance between these two extremes. A balance that _you personally_ can live with because each end of the spectrum is equally valid. If you find that your core beliefs clash with the rest of your startup, maybe you should start looking for a startup that prioritizes design and user experience much more.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree 100% about the Apple philosophy, great comment.

I understand about pressures. However, I've worked at a big company, small, and now at a startup, and none of them seem to have time to focus on quality. Maybe I've just been unlucky, and that the Apples of this world are a very rare breed. It could also be argued that it's more important for a startup to focus on quality, especially if entering a crowded market?

Thanks for the advice, you're right it's all about balance. It's not all bad, there are some people at my company who love spending time on user experience, but at the moment they just don't fight for the cause. Hopefully when things get a big less hectic (if that ever happens) there will be time for improvement in this area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In today's world, deadlines are everything. And it has been my experience that deadlines are getting tighter and tighter. So I understand where your manager comes from, he just want you to finish the project in the shortest amount of time.

However, having a sense of design and wanting to make eveything you do a cut above the rest are admireable qualities in my point of view. I'm sure there are loads of companies who will actually appreciate this. If you're having fun at your job, discuss it with your manager. If he just wants a code monkey, tell him there are loads of them, and that this position at this job are not for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's really valuable advice, thank you.

I've only got a few years' experience so I guess I don't yet know what it's like to be managing deadlines from above. I do know that if I ever was, I would not be able to sacrifice what I'm passionate about in order to guarantee to meet deadlines. I would always rather risk delivering great products a bit late than deliver average products on time. I know that doesn't make sense for larger businesses right now but if I ever have a startup of my own that's how I'd want it to be from the beginning!

Cheers

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A programmer with design skills? You're a rare species. I'm sure a lot of startups would hire you in a heartbeat. So, maybe you should look for a job where your skills and work ethics will be more appreciated and properly paid for.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know design skills are becoming more common, but for now I guess I'm fortunate to have other options as you suggest. I guess I just need to know if that side of my work IS appreciated. Thanks for the advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing that might be useful is can you make things look polished (relatively) in less time by using something like Twitter BootStrap, etc.

Are you adjusting the last margin to make things pixel perfect and are you fretting over two different fonts that to my mother look about the same? Then they are probably right.

However, are you focusing on 50,000 foot page layout issues that the client is going to see. Then you're probably doing them a service.

</comment><comment><USER7> The key to being a good employee is showing that you can do what you are asked to do. If the company needs quick and dirty mock ups, do that. You can always show them what polished mock ups, too. If they don't value the polished versions, you can learn to take pride in your ability to do quick and dirty, because that too is a skill.

Learn to focus on what business problem your job solves.

</comment><comment><USER8> Don't stop being awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> I won't!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing you might also consider, and please don't take this personally, cause I might be way off -- It could be that you're slow, or perhaps, that the 'extra effort' you're putting in to things means that they're missing deadlines or are unable to start the next thing.

The key comment though is amorphid's, I think, that you're being paid to do what you're told. If that makes you unhappy, then as mentioned, there are probably a ton of places that would be happy to have you.

Before that happens, I would have a conversation with your boss and see why they keep asking for the rush treatment. If it's a deficiency with you, that's something you can work on and improve. If it's because they don't understand the value of a good design, that's something you can work with them on and hopefully improve their understanding. It might be that there's a bigger mission that your boss knows that you don't? It could also be that they're idiots and you're not.

Either way, I would put as much care into the working relationship as you already do the work itself.

<comment><AUTHOR> It could indeed be that I'm slow compared to other developers, although I think that's unlikely. I guess I'll have to have a word and find out for sure.

Thanks for the advice.</comment></comment>


Hong Kong protesters get pro bono cybersecurity help from Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/f/614520/hong-kong-protesters-get-pro-bono-cybersecurity-help-from-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER2> It's good to see Silicon Valley help people in Kurdistan, the West Bank, and everywhere it is needed.</comment>


Netscape Communicator "WINDOWS or MAC" - $5 - <AUTHOR> http://chattanooga.craigslist.org/sys/2338798529.html

<comment><USER2> This post is best fit for Reddit, not HN. Please keep our community clean of offtopic postings</comment>


Find and Replace: DNA Editing Tool Shows Gene Therapy Promise - <AUTHOR> https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2017/01/24/find-and-replace-dna-editing-tool-shows-gene-therapy-promise/ <comment><USER2> It would be interesting to know how the scaling-up procedure works? Is it similar to scaling up and productionizing a software system?

Anyways, I guess the only question is how much time it will take to have mass- scale gene editing on people.

<comment><USER3> If you are imagining having something injected into you and your cells being "edited" in situ, I doubt it can happen with this tech. The process is very toxic to cells in every paper that reports that aspect. You will only see them remove the cells, "edit" them in a dish, then inject them back in.

I even suspect a major portion of the "editing" is not editing at all, but rather selecting for the small number of pre-existing cells that are mutants at any site. This works because the mutants are "immune" due to lacking the recognition sequence.

Then again, I haven't read a paper on it in awhile now (and the ones posted here seem to be mostly editorials nowadays), so maybe they figured something out.

<comment><USER4> "The process is very toxic to cells...." you mean like chemotherapy?

<comment><USER3> Yes, the way CRISPR/Cas9 works, the DNA must be damaged.

However, chemotherapy is not very selective about which cells it damages. Here, the DNA is much more difficult to damage if it is already missing the exact sequence being targeted for "editing", so the targeted cells will die while the mutants divide to take their place.

If I thought specific somatic mutations were good drug targets for cancer, I would be more enthusiastic about CRISPR/Cas9 as a less toxic chemotherapy than a gene-editing therapy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really wish I could get the take of an impartial scientist on this. How much is hype vs reality?

<comment><USER6> I am a scientist and I am impartial if that is good enough :)

The major problem is the same as it has been for the last 30 years - delivery. You can make the most amazing molecular machinery for modifying genes, but if you can't get it into a very high percentage of adult cells then it is useless for most treatment purposes. We still don't have any good delivery systems that work on all cell types and doesn't come with the very real risk of death via immune hyper reaction.

<comment><USER7> IMHO, in some cases, cells can be converted into stem cells, repaired in lab conditions, and then delivered back into damaged organ or area.

<comment><USER6> Yes some haematological diseases can be treated this way, but not much else. We really need much better delivery systems that work in all tissue types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is it a false dichotomy for me to say: "we can't even fix the economy; I'm skeptical to think we're going to do any serious modifications to our DNA with positive, well directed results that are absent in shocking negative side effects."?

Disclaimer: I know more about the economy to DNA, which is to say, still not very much.

<comment><USER9> I think economy is harder than biology, for the same reason it's harder than physics - because economy involves thinking actors with conflicting goals, many of whom will happily use their cognitive powers to oppose your fixes to the economy. Biology may be complex, but it's not made of actors smarter than you who will work against you, sometimes just out of spite.</comment></comment>


How I made an HDTV antenna so I could watch Jeopardy last night - <AUTHOR> http://blamcast.net/articles/how-to-make-an-hdtv-antenna <comment><USER2> You'll get even better reception if you shape the wire in a fractal pattern, like this: [http://www.instructables.com/image/FDXQQVBFP8NM7YF/Create- fr...](http://www.instructables.com/image/FDXQQVBFP8NM7YF/Create-fractals.jpg)

Nathan Cohen made this discovery after listening to a Mandelbrot talk on fractals: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna#Fractal_element...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna#Fractal_element_antennas_and_performance)

<comment><USER3> "Nathan Cohen made this discovery..."

He's the reason you don't have a stubby antenna sticking out of your cell phone anymore. Really cool story.

<comment><USER4> I watched a Nova on fractals not too long ago, it covered this bit exactly. Definitely a cool story :) I don't 100% remember the title, but I think this was it: [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/hunting-hidden- dimensio...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/hunting-hidden- dimension.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thanks, I'm glad you took our comments to heart :)

Two questions:

1\. What exactly is the purpose of the cardboard tube? I'm guessing the key point is that it's non-conductive, but would the same coil work without the cardboard? (not very knowledgable about antennae I admit)

2\. How the _hell_ does that connector even work? It looks so marvelously out of place ... does this mean the wire mesh around the normal coaxial cables is just shielding and doesn't actually do anything? If so, how come you don't need shielding?

Those were the two main questions that popped to mind, obviously I don't know anything about this stuff and I could probably look it up somewhere. But maybe someone here can provide a human-to-human good enough explanation.

<comment><USER6> Shielding is useful but not exactly required if the signal is strong enough and the cable is short enough. EX: You can use barbed wire to send 10 baseT. However, 1 gigabit has major issues without shielding.

PS: I once noticed my Sega genesis was producing a vary fuzzy picture, so I went to fiddle with the cable and noticed it was not even plugged in. At the time I really freaked out and to this day I still wish I had a picture.

<comment><USER7> _I went to fiddle with the cable and noticed it was not even plugged in._

Back in college, we were watching a, umm, adult video on my roommate's VCR. The guy from the room next door walked past, and said "oh, you're watching the movie too?". It turns out that we'd mistakenly connected the VCR's RF _output_ to the antenna, so the guy next door was watching our transmitted movie. (although his picture was poor)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My HDTV antenna is a paperclip stuck into the back of a TiVo. I get solid HD reception, no artifacts or other problems. It is all about how close you are to the broadcast towers. I have line of sight to towers that are about 12 miles away.

</comment><comment><USER9> Which city are you in? I'm in downtown Ottawa and with a store-bought HDTV antenna I get only 2 stations. Maybe I'll have to go buy a spool of wire!

<comment><AUTHOR> South end of Ottawa :)

<comment><USER9> Well that settles it. I'm buying a spool tonight. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can use <http://www.tvfool.com/> to chart the strength of nearby TV signals based on your location. It includes both US and Canadian broadcast towers.

I'd be interested to know the strength of the signals you're able to receive with your paper-towel-tube antenna design.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you are smack in a city where the signals are literally washing over you I guess just a wire will work.

The coathanger antenna works best for me though, I'm too far away from most stations for just a wire.

Your design might work best for VHF stations while the coathanger method is best for UHF

Canada still has analog stations?

</comment><comment><USER12> Just made one of these, really really half-assed.

I had to strip a coaxe cable with a pair of scissors and my hands. That took at least 20 mins.

But here we are

<http://imgur.com/a/6mE0W>

I have to remember to take that down before someone gets cut in half running down the stairs

</comment><comment><USER13> If you're more lazy and don't mind watching someone watch the show, this worked at 7 PM Eastern yesterday: <http://www.ustream.tv/channel/final- jeopardy-man-vs-machine>

</comment><comment><USER14> Ive been looking for an excuse to do this: [http://www.re-nest.com/re- nest/how-to/how-to-make-a-string-t...](http://www.re-nest.com/re-nest/how- to/how-to-make-a-string-tree-wall-mural-home-hacks-109655) Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER15> Gray Hoverman antennae do a good job for longer distances: <http://www.digitalhome.ca/ota/superantenna/>

If you search a little more through the <http://www.digitalhome.ca/> forums, you can find newer generations of the design. Various folks have been using genetic algorithms to find more efficient modifications to the original design. <http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=119489>

</comment><comment><USER16> My antenna is currently a coaxial cable screwed into the back of my TV and extended up to my curtain rod. It looks like I'm getting curtain-rod cable.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have an antenna from RCA that is "enhanced". When I plug it in, it definitely helps in solidifying the picture.

[http://www.amazon.com/RCA-ANT1650-Digital-Amplified- Antenna/...](http://www.amazon.com/RCA-ANT1650-Digital-Amplified- Antenna/dp/B0027FGW3K)

Using your antenna, how could I go about amplifying the reach in an attempt to pick up more channels and/or increase the display quality of current channels?

<comment><USER18> Going through common antenna design compromises...

Depends on your location, of course, but the most effective thing _I_ could do is get out of this valley. Next, I'd straighten the antenna wire and move the antenna outdoors (with a 75Ω coax line connecting it to the TV). You could also adjust the length so it's resonant at a particular frequency, but that will weaken the signal you receive on other channels. Alternatively, cutting it way longer than the minimum resonant length (like an order of magnitude or so) seems to make for a pretty forgiving frequency response. Then again, commercial broadcast transmitters are probably running enough output power that unobstructed line of sight makes more of a difference than anything else can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've gotten pretty good reception with a UHF loop antenna like catalog # 46-200 pictured here:

<http://www.farnsworthelectronics.com/antenna.htm>

I use a matching-transformer to connect it to the coax plug.

</comment><comment><USER20> Heres plans for an antenna I built. <http://www.tvantennaplans.com/>

I like the simplicity and potential of your design though. I want to try an array of tubes and wiring, and see how well that works.

<comment><USER21> I got the same plans via Make and have been using mine for 2+ years. It works awesome. Before dtv I could get 1-2 stations of mostly fuzz. Now I get 7 channels in full HD.

[http://www.82smugglers.com/gallery/projects/p1020110.jpg.htm...](http://www.82smugglers.com/gallery/projects/p1020110.jpg.html)

Tried some shielding on the back and it did not make any difference.

<comment><USER20> same here... I receive over 30+ channels now, most are HD (LA) area. With this and a computer hooked up to my TV would never consider going back to cable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does this work in the US? I've been under the assumption that with the recent switch from analog to digital signal (and the need for a digital converter box), connecting an antenna straight to a TV no longer works.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER23> The frequencies are the same, and since they're not doing anything freaky with the signal (just broadcast) the same kind of antenna ought to work. In fact, you should get a better signal, because ATSC has much better multipath resistance than NTSC did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Mine is just a copper wire, no fancy cardboard tubes or coils.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm in a place that's hilly and the towers are far away. Maybe I'd get something with a 75 foot tower, maybe.

For me it's ivi.tv

<comment><USER26> _> Maybe I'd get something with a 75 foot tower_

        1) Attach 75-foot wire to TV
        2) Attach other end to weather balloon
        3) Inflate balloon
        4) Watch Jeopardy

Maybe tie some brightly coloured threads onto the wire at intervals to stop birds flying into it.

Note: there are probably many other reasons why you shouldn't do this. Make sure to let us know when you find out what they are.

<comment><USER27> Enjoy the pyrotechnics during the next thunderstorm.

<comment><USER28> Also, static electricity will build up on a wire like that unless you bleed the charge off to ground with something like a nice high-ohm resistor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This article is excellent! And thank you, chaosmachine, for providing instructions for replication.

It's my strong opinion that everything here is ethically sound. This sort of "hacker" culture is the meat and potatoes of what drives innovation in the United States today, and whether this specific incident results in a new product or simply higher security by cable providers, progress has been made.

<comment><USER30> What do cable providers have anything to do with this?

He built his own antenna to receive local channels that are broadcast over the air. These are broadcast specifically so that people with antennas can receive them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Why doesn't the outside part of the coax port have to also touch the wire?

<comment><USER32> I don't think coaxs have a 'return' on the actual cable. The outside part of a coax is just a screw for holding the cable in place. It could be made with plastic for all it matters.

<comment><USER33> Nah, it's to ground the shield. Shields work marginally better when grounded, but the difference is minor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Private Justin.tv broadcast anyone?

</comment><comment><USER35> What size is the cardboard tube?

</comment><comment><USER36> whoa; that's too kool; congratulations!!!

</comment><comment><USER37> can we see how it was put in the window?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure: <http://i.imgur.com/jOiWI.jpg>

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> lol whut. THATS TOO EASY!</comment>


737 MAX crashes "linked" by satellite track data, FAA says - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/faa-acting-chief-says-satellite-data-provided-link-between-boeing-crashes/ <comment><USER5> Many aviation enthusiasts / pilots first go to is to have a look at the flight data - usually available on FlightAware / FlightRadar24 and a few other websites, plus LiveATC usually can provide recordings of the flights communications to towers as well.

Most immediately saw parallels with the Lion Air crash - but as always, we as laymen should refrain from coming to conclusions until after a thorough investigation has been completed.

The fleet has been grounded, and reports / data will slowly trickle out as more conclusions are made.

<comment><USER6> It is/was a real stretch to draw any parallels based on the amount of ADS-B data we got out of FR24. The plane went out of range of the nearest FR24 ADS-B receiver just a few minutes after taking off. People see what they want to see.

It sure is an impatient world we live in. Probably attributable to the Internet, our insatiable need for more information _NOW_. Everyone ripping on the FAA for not making a grounding decision until yesterday, even though the crash itself happened just four days ago.

<comment><USER7> I rip the FAA for that. The level of air safety we have is because we have traditionally protected it fiercely. Within minutes of the second plane going down, the type should have been grounded until the FAA could figure out whether they were related. If not, they can unground them later.

<comment><USER6> There is a good reason we teach kids the allegory about the boy who cried wolf. If the FAA panics that easily they will destroy their creditability just as quickly as if they take too long. If they really did get new evidence yesterday and it prompted their decision, then I think they deserve more credit than the other world agencies that freaked out in a matter of hours. I want our regulators to be cold and analytical.

<comment><USER8> It is not panicking or freaking out to err on the side of caution and ground flights.

In fact it seems quite prudent for a regulator to do this.

<comment><USER9> > It is not panicking or freaking out to err on the side of caution and ground > flights.

It can be, though.

There is a risk inherent to air travel. The _safest_ thing to do would be to ground all flights of all aircraft permanently.

That wouldn't be prudent, though, because we can mitigate the risk until the benefit of air travel outweighs the risk of dying during air travel.

The prudent thing to do is to carefully evaluate the risks, and make a determination when the risks become too great.

<comment><USER10> A statistically unlikely pair of crashes or the same model of plane, same phase of flight, same consequences, and similar altitude variations would seem to be enough justification for a prudent grounding.

If a company releases a new version of their software and it crashes twice in similar ways (much more frequently than the previous version), that is also enough reason to rollback the release and investigate, especially if the software has any critical use cases.

<comment><USER11> If you release a software update and only 2 out of thousands of nodes are experiencing problems, would you honestly take the whole application offline over that? Most software companies would not, in my experience. They would take a close look at those two nodes first.

Obviously commercial aviation has much higher standards than software vendors generally do. Airline tickets don't generally come with 5,000 word EULAs with all-caps provisions like "THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY REASON AND YOU ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY NEGATIVE OUTCOMES OF ANY KIND" etc.

Two crashes in close succession seems like an obvious abnormality. But because standards are so high, to commercial aviation providers and regulators, _every single crash_ is treated as a significant abnormality. So the question is, why don't they ground all models of a certain plane after a single crash? Once you understand that, the same logic applies to two crashes.

<comment><USER12> The first fallacy in this is that (as I understand it) you only think about probabilities, while in fact it's about probability (of something bad happening) times the cost of that bad thing.

Clearly, a chance for a bug losing you 300$ is much less of a problem than a chance for a bug killing 300 people.

The second thing is that a software update may render previous knowledge useless.

Just because the old software ran successfully on 100k nodes, it might still be the case that 2 out of 1000 new versions fail, so then you have 0.2% failure rate. That doesn't mean you should take out all 100k nodes but it means you might want to stop the 1k nodes in accordance with the principles laid out above.

Finally, I am not even sure why this is a yes/no question. How about: You're allowed to use the plane but you cannot rely on a defense of "the FAA said it was ok" if something happens, so talk to your insurance before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This data's been available for several days at the least, right? Are they just trying to come up with an explanation for why they now support a grounding that they opposed yesterday that isn't "the President told us to"?

<comment><USER14> I was unaware that the president was involved in the decision making process, do you have any more details on that?

<comment><USER15> There's zero evidence so far that Trump had anything to do with that. Certainly he shouldn't.

But of course, we _should_ have a fully-functioning and fully-staffed FAA, too. But we don't, because of Trump intentionally hamstringing it, and because of antics like trying to get his personal pilot named head of FAA when he came into office.

<comment><USER16> John Dunkin is the pilot you refer to. Do you think that he should be excluded from the job based on his Trump affiliation - or are there specific things he lacks that would mean he would be unsuitable for the job?

It appears that Mr. Dunkin has decades of experience as a pilot and has no previous affiliation with the FAA.

<comment><USER17> Decades of non-management experience in the same field qualifies you to run a 30,000 employee agency?

I've got decades of non-management software dev experience, perhaps I should be in charge of Microsoft?

<comment><USER16> Good point. And I think that is an important consideration.

However, to be clear, he does have smaller scale management experience - <USER2> likely consistently, but at the very least during the Trump campaign.

Perhaps he would be wrong for the job, but certainly there are examples of both experienced and less experienced/inexperienced persons doing awful jobs at the helm of agencies, companies, and even countries.

I would also add that being in charge of such a massive organization often means you do not get to make off the cuff or unilateral decisions so easily as you would, say, at a 50 person organization. You do certainly get to steer, but there are many other hands on the wheel.

As for you being CEO of MS, Satya is doing a decent enough job + I know nothing of your background and you come off as under confident in your ability to do the job. So I'll go with no :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's interesting to note that, as emotionally salient this is for HN, in terms of significance compared to other problems out there it might be lower.

It's a bit of a flaw in human nature that easily-pictured problems scare us much more than abstract/distant problems.

Is it silly to press for a moral value of striving to make our morality align with numeric measure of significance rather than sensational emotions?

<comment><USER19> I think this 737 MAX issue resonates with the HN crowd because, along with the emotional factors, it's a high-stakes technical problem.

The two fatal crashes were caused by an interplay of hardware, software design, and human factors, and studying things like this is fascinating to those of us who are interested in building systems so that catastrophes don't happen.

<comment><USER20> It's a high stakes technical problem that is _caused by not addressing technical debt_ \- something that the many of the HN readership sees on a daily basis in other domains.

MCAS was created as a way to compensate for instability caused by strapping large engines onto an aircraft not originally designed for it, as opposed to doing a redesign.

<comment><USER21> Also there's the "sales/business people made the problem worse" angle as well that developers just love.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How is it we have such precise satellite location data on these crashes - <USER3> MH370 can just disappear.

<comment><USER23> Didn't you read the part about the transponder being switched off?

<comment><USER24> Please see the "In Comments" section of [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Writing "The transponder was switched off" would contribute the same substance to the conversation but without the insinuation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It says the damaged flight recorder was sent to France. Do they have a better recovery/repair team than, say, the US' FAA and NTSB, or is it more likely just because France is much closer to the crash site?

<comment><USER26> I don't recall why but I think MH370 recorder was also sent to France. Probably to avoid conflict of interests ?

<comment><USER27> You mean MH17?? MH370 was never found.

<comment><USER26> maybe it was the potential piece of fuselage found later then ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's early. The graphs show a dive after takeoff while speed is increasing. That's a loss of control; nobody does that on purpose. More info is needed to know _why_. Uncommanded nosedown? Actual stall? Something else?

</comment><comment><USER29> How does the theory of a faulty AoA sensor align with eye witness accounts of smoke coming from the plane?

Also, the altitude data seems to cut out at it's peak. Was the decent so rapid it couldn't be tracked?

<comment><USER30> > _How does the theory of a faulty AoA sensor align with eye witness accounts > of smoke coming from the plane?_

They don't need to align. Eyewitness accounts are so bad, it's surprising they're allowed in court.

"Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts - <USER4> testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate"

> _Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is > more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real._

> _In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave > subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually > experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being > lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and > six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, > such as a description of the mall at which the subject's parents shopped._

> _After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they > remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it > at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or > fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent > still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent > with the findings of similar studies._

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes- have-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/)

<comment><USER31> You example is subjects believing a _false story given to them_. That's different than someone reporting something that they believed they saw with no prompting from anyone else.

<comment> semi-extrinsic We don't know whether that happened in this case. Maybe journalist (who was there hours later) asked the eye witnesses "did you see smoke or hear strange sounds?" \- if so, all bets are off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A Pilot who hitched a ride in cockpit saved doomed Lion Air Boeing 737 Max day before it crashed. As the Lion Air crew fought to control their diving Boeing 737 Max 8, they got help from an unexpected source: an off-duty pilot who happened to be riding in the cockpit.

That extra pilot, who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat, correctly diagnosed the problem and told the crew how to disable a malfunctioning flight-control system and save the plane, two people familiar with Indonesia's investigation told Bloomberg.

Why wasn't this information passed on to all Lion Air pilots?

</comment><comment><USER32> Sound like Air Bus A330 nose dive problem, they had with the software 3 years back, sounds a lot like the Boeing 737 MAX 8 problem that is burning up the news channels. Did AIR BUS ground their A330 world wide fleet when this happened? How did Air Bus handle this?

</comment><comment><USER33> I've seen many discussions about whether the groundings of the MAX (especially the earliest ones) are hysterical/political or is it based on any facts. The facts is two of these BRAND NEW planes crashed within 5 months under very similar circumstances. Doesn't that alone seems statistically justified to ground the MAX? The chances of human error and/or environmental factor striking twice within such short period seems infinitesimally low, no? Just curious how that math works out.

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't see anything in this article that wasn't already in the FAA's Emergency Order of Prohibition[1]:

 _On March 13, 2019, the investigation of the ET302 crash developed new information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft 's configuration just after takeoff that, taken together with newly refined data from satellite- based tracking of the aircraft's flight path, indicates some similarities between the ET302 and JT610 accidents that warrant further investigation of the possibility of a shared cause for the two incidents that needs to be better understood and addressed. Accordingly, the Acting Administrator is ordering all Boeing 737 MAX airplanes to be grounded pending further investigation._

This article is further missing the "new information from the wreckage concerning the aircraft's configuration" piece, which is in the NPR interview[2]: _And that, coupled with some physical evidence we found at the crash site led us to believe that the similarities were too great not to consider that there was a common thread._

So it wasn't just the flight path, which indeed was sufficient for other countries, but the addition of physical evidence as well:

 _And when you have a common thread between two accidents, then the argument for grounding becomes necessary. Grounding becomes necessary, and so that 's what we did. We didn't have that link until yesterday morning, yesterday afternoon about midday.

GREENE: But isn't this something that analysts and experts have been saying for days now, that these two crashes appeared similar?

ELWELL: Yeah. Many were saying it, but nobody had data to act on it. It was all conjecture. And in aviation, the FAA in the U.S. has always acted on data. We're a data-driven organization. We have the safety record we have today based on science, risk analysis and data._

1\. [https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Emergency_Order.pdf](https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Emergency_Order.pdf)

2\. [https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703298739/faa-acting-head- dan...](https://www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703298739/faa-acting-head-dan-elwell- on-boeing-decision)

</comment><comment><USER35> If these two crash had happened in USA or Western Europe . Would the FAA have grounded the 737 right away . Or would they have waited before taking that decision

<comment><USER36> Turning that around a bit...

If it was a pair of Airbus aircraft (A320, A330, pick any you like) which suffered these two crashes, would the FAA have demanded the whole fleet grounded?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How strange that they both had issues at around 6000-8500 feet, briefly recovering, then nose diving.

Even more interesting is the recent 767 Amazon cargo flight crash in Texas also did a node dive at around 8000 feet which somehow has escaped the news with this new crash [1]. The pilots decided on a path around weather, were at 11-12000 feet, descended 3000+ feet and then the plane essentially did a similar nose dive. Is this a data problem?

> _As the plane passed through 12,000 feet at a ground speed of 290 knots (340 > mph), the pilots indicated they preferred the westerly route option ATC had > given them around the rain; air traffic control told them they would need to > descend quickly to 3,000 feet to do so, and radar data reveals the Boeing > turned to a heading of 270º as requested and descended through 8,500 feet. > One minute later, the controller told the crew they would be past the bad > weather in about 18 miles, and to expect a turn to the north. The crew > responded "Sounds good" and "Okay," according to the NTSB, and the plane > leveled out at 6,200 feet before rising 100 feet more._

> _That, apparently, is when things went haywire. The aircraft began what the > NTSB report described as "small vertical accelerations consistent with the > airplane entering turbulence," according to the flight data recorders > recovered from the accident scene. Seconds later, with the plane holding > steading at 230 knots (265 mph), the engines went to full power, and the > nose of the plane rose four degrees...then the aircraft pitched nose-down > for the next 18 seconds, reaching a maximum pitch of –49º in response to the > plane's elevator inputs. _

The Ethiopia 737 Max has almost the same issue [2]

> _ADS-B data recorded for ET302 by FlightRadar24 shows that the aircraft, > after reaching an altitude of 8,025 feet above sea level, suddenly dipped, > plunging 400 feet before recovering briefly. But the aircraft 's vertical > speed remained unstable, and a few minutes later it dove into the ground. > For reference, the airport the flight took off from is at 7,631 feet above > sea level—so the aircraft never reached more than 500 feet above the ground, > not leaving much room for correction._

All of these planes had issues in the 6000-8500 feet range and then both suffered the same plunging fate after briefly recovering from a dip / nose stabilization issue.

Hopefully the ADS system is secure and not susceptible to infiltration/hacks causing the plane to react to incorrect data at a range that is not recoverable.

[1] [http://www.thedrive.com/news/26933/amazon- boeing-767-cargo-p...](http://www.thedrive.com/news/26933/amazon- boeing-767-cargo-plane-was-going-almost-500-mph-in-texas-crash-ntsb-says)

[2] [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2019/03/faa-a...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2019/03/faa-acting-chief-says-satellite-data-provided-link-between- boeing-crashes/)

<comment><USER38> I guess the correlation here is the stalling problem often happens during this height range. Both 737 were in the ascending process, while the 767 is during normal flying.

For me, the 767 hit with some kind of strange turbulence then the engines went to max and caused a typical stall crash. You could google about the stall crash, such as : [https://www.dw.com/en/why-do-airplanes-stall-and-why-is- it-s...](https://www.dw.com/en/why-do-airplanes-stall-and-why-is-it-so- dangerous/a-47869837)

For both 737 max, their MCAS system thought they had a stall potential and triggered on nose dive while the airplanes were actually in the perfectly normal situation.

For 767, they do not have this autonomous system and the stall warning was not even triggered. So it was a purely manual operation. If they have a perfectly functioned MCAS like the 737 max has, they may have survived.

So a working MCAS could save plane from crash like 767 had. Just the MCAS on 737 max was not working correctly and MAY potentially have caused the tragedy.

<comment><USER37> > _Both 737 were in the ascending process, while the 767 is during normal > flying._

It might not have anything to do with ascent/descent but the range / altitude and how systems react at that altitude. Maybe the systems are designed to be more reactive at this height because there is less chance to recover than if you are cruising at 30k feet.

What is most interesting to me is how the Amazon cargo plane 767 crash made almost zero news and has quickly been replaced in the news with the 737 Max 8/9 issues. Though all situations are very similar, straight nose dives that were sudden at the 6000-8500 feet range. There has to be something to that.

767 crashes and emergencies are EXTREMELY rare [1].

Most are related to human intervention such as terrorism, pilot error, fuel error and only a very small amount are mechanical errors. Of the 12 problems, only 5 were mechanical error.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_inciden...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_767)

<comment><USER38> That is probably because 767 is a plane with quite a long history without any major upgrade. And it is cargo, so no passengers.

The first 737 Max crashed in Indonesia, it did not have quite media coverage as well. The second one got much more attention because that is quite rare that two brand new flights crashed in such a short period. Everyone suspected it is caused by design or system flaws.

<comment><USER37> > _That is probably because 767 is a plane with quite a long history without > any major upgrade. And it is cargo, so no passengers._

767 is a passenger and cargo plane.

I assume you mean the Amazon 767 was a cargo plane [1], in which case yes it got less attention as only the pilots/cargo crew were on board. However, a 767 crashing in the US seems like it would have gotten more focus.

Other 767s are passenger planes including two infamous ones American Airlines Flight 11 (Boeing 767-223ER) and United Airlines Flight 175 (Boeing 767-200) that were the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center tower 1 & 2 on 9/11 [2][3].

For the most part these planes don't crash and a straight nose dive is a freak occurrence. Most of the other issues that weren't crashes with 767 were landing gear, short fuel related and terrorism.

It is very strange and eerie that this 767 from Amazon crashed almost similarly to the 737 Max 8/9 in Indonesia and Ethiopia recently, with such a long history of nothing like this.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Air_Flight_3591)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: You have a monthly subscription to hardware product – how do you price - <AUTHOR> Assume widget one costs you 100, and they will pay monthly for 3years for the device. How much do you charge per month?
And widget 2 is 30
And they will have hundreds of widget 1. But thousands of widget 2.
Is there some standard models I can follow? <comment><USER2> Isn't that basically a lease? Is the user returning the product or is there an option to buy at the end?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wasn't quite sure if widget lease amortization? would be the same for a small widget as opposed to a car. And no - they would not purchase.

Monthly service subscriptions for SaaS/PaaS are priced how?

Total cost of doing business/number of clients+profitEpectation/time etc?</comment></comment>


Top differences between working for startups and corporations - <AUTHOR> http://blog.startupcvs.com/2015/07/23/top-10-differences-working-startups-corporations/

<comment><USER3> I always trust sites dedicated to getting people jobs at startups to tell the honest truth about what it's like to work at a startup.

I work for a large corporation, and almost every single negative thing listed here is false. The main one that's not (and I'm not sure this is even really a negative) is the high risk/low upside - I'll be quite comfortable here, but I'll never be pulling down millions in a year as I would if I struck it rich with a startup I owned. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure only a few dozen people actually make millions from startups.

Oh, and "essential vs. substitutable" \- everyone is substitutable. It doesn't matter if you're employee #2 or employee #10002, you're replaceable. Actually, that one amusingly contradicts the generalist vs specialist one - you would think specialists that know the domain would be a lot harder to replace than the "generalist" who's spinning up the world's 8 billionth MEAN stack, but then that would require the source to have a little self-awareness.

<comment><USER4> This. Although, in my experience it's more relative to team size than company size. I work on a fairly small engineering team within a large apparel company and it seems to match the bullet points for start-ups more closely.

<comment><USER5> One important point is that because large corporations often try to emulate the culture of startups (and never the other way around), if you try to make an article contrasting the two cultures you are inevitably going to miss the mark on your description of large corporations. Essentially you are trying to describe a divergence when much of the world is seeking a convergence between the two.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've found startup life to be less initiative-based than my previous corporate life.

In B2B startup, features are driven by sales and post-sale support, and sales / keeping the biggest customers happy (for later upsell) is of paramount importance. We have far more potential features to build than we have people to work on them, so prioritization is done from the top down and can change depending on the sales landscape. Thus I have very little discretion over what I do on a day to day basis, and there are people asking me to do things every day. Initiative isn't actually necessary, unless you want to improve things in ways that management etc. can't see.

Whereas in corporate life, I owned a little corner of the product, and when given a strategic initiative, I came up with feature suggestions that made our customers' and my team's life / lives easier. I had more strategic responsibility, and although the direct risk of my failure was lower, my work had larger impact because it got delivered to far more people - a mature organization has far more customers, if it's healthy.

</comment><comment><USER7> Blimey, that was hard to read. Also a couple of points were only relevant to the USA.

<comment><USER8> I actually thought it looked pretty good. If it wasn't done by a designer, I didn't notice it (probably my barrier is too low :) ).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Agree with "brand recognition" \- its a serious advantage for employees of large corp. Large corps are vulnerable to losing top talent because they usually can't match market due to strict internal hierarchy policies. Quicker way to get promoted at large corp - prove your skills, leave on good terms, gain visibility and titles elsewhere and then re-join large corp at a much higher position.

Regulations:

Large corps are much stricter regulated and this adds to your responsibilities to do boring stuff.

Permissions:

Large corps spending lots of resources for reinventing and improving systems of access controls and permissions as well as sets of exceptions to such systems.

Average worker age:

20+ something for startup, 40-50+ something for corps.

Accessibility of top management:

Startup: you knock the door and talk to the guy, Large corp: you send email to C*O of large corp and get no reply not because he is busy, but because his secretary pre-filtered emails and discarded yours.

<comment><USER10> you didn't work for a competitive software corp. did you? to me, all three are wrong.

-Regulations? if you are good, you can do anything you want. you are powerful. regulations are there to stop dreamers. dreamers are stopped in startup world a lot harsher. -Permissions? only around %2 of employees work on that. actually less. do you think those kind of systems are worth the effort? (works! done.) -Avg worker age? this is simply not true. the acquihires we had, were older than my -corp- team avg.

<comment><USER9> I worked at both, but there are perhaps exceptions.

<comment><USER10> Me too, but corp culture perhaps changes as fast as software development practices change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Corporations: People who find pleasure in their personal lifes

Startups: People who don't

If you don't have friends, just work hard and be good at something at the very least. Even if its annoying people for a living (I am looking at you, Tech- Recruiters!)

<comment><USER12> I've worked for 2 corporations - each time I ended up tired, burnt out and devoid of any social life.

They delivered a lot of perks - money, sport pass, private health care - <USER2> in exchange created a very stressful workplace filled with meetings, performance reviews and many people who didn't bother to help when I struggled with some part of project I was not familiar with. I've gained 20kg in a year, was nearly depressed and hated myself for working there. I hated how with all buzzwords and bullshit smiled managers made me fill guilty that I don't sit there more than 8h a day and that I were slower than people who had 12 times (literally!) more experience than I did.

Now I work remotely for startup on B2B. My wage is bit lower, I have no medical and sport perk but finally I have enough sleep and enough time to take care of myself. I often go out and meet my friends as often as I can. I am finally rested enough to workout and I feel my life improve each day.

Whether corporate life makes one shine or feel miserable is a matter of particular company, manager, team, stack and several other factors. Some people are truly happy for being there, some, like me and most of my friends, promise themselves to never ever work there again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think your job is to some extent what you make of it. While it is true that work is handed down to you, it is possible to create your own work, and in a lot of cases (in my exp) it shows favorably on you as an employee. Plus its more fun to get paid to do what you want while having to do what you are told.

</comment><comment><USER14> I find that in many of the companies I've worked for (non-startups), I end up getting the startup boxes while being paid and appreciated at the corporation level. In my case, and likely for many others, staying in corporations is a waste of talent and drive (and world benefit).

</comment><comment><USER15> good read

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot!</comment></comment>


Leap Motion scam alert - <AUTHOR>

I ordered 2 Leaps through kick starter. Well after promised shipping date I got an email saying the payment and shipping info was wrong. The listed data were correct but I confirmed them anyway. Today I get another email saying cannot be delivered and that I have to call. The subcontracted CSR said I would have to call another line with my old order info to reorder or get a refund, that this had been happening lots, and that he didn't give a shit nor could direct you to anyone at Leap who would. Buyer beware... <comment><USER2> Got mine 2 days after it was shipped. No problems. But hey, they did send out 800,000 of these things in one go or something crazy. There are bound to be niche cases. But your experience sounds horrific, you really need to get through to someone at Leap directly. Try their forum, they have a lass there, Misty Matonis who seems to be doing an absolutely stellar job of handling individual queries.

Bare in mind that they must be swamped right now though. Perhaps next time they release a product they'll not do it all at once again and set up more support channels.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want to be taken seriously you might want to change "I ordered 2 leaps through kick starter".

Kickstarter is not an order platform. It's a donation platform.

<comment><USER4> Also, i ordered a leap about a year and a half ago. They never Kickstarted it to my knowledge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thank you for sharing. If I were you, I'd call my credit card provider and initiate a chargeback request without delay.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've ordered mine a long time ago, got it, no problems, delivered by FedEx from Czek Republic to London!

</comment><comment><USER7> I was part of the developer program. Got mine a few months ago without any issues.</comment>


Ten Lessons I Learned While Teaching Myself to Code - <AUTHOR> https://tim.blog/2019/03/21/learn-to-code/ <comment><USER2> Very interesting and impressive post: Clive Thompson describes what it's like to learn to code even after having a successful career for 2 decades in something else (journalism) -- and how coding helped him in his ongoing career.

Also liked the link he provided as an example: "Don't Learn to Code -- Learn to Automate" by Erik Dietrich, [https://daedtech.com/dont-learn-to-code-learn- to-automate/](https://daedtech.com/dont-learn-to-code-learn-to-automate/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Normally I don't like these kind of posts as they're often full of the usual "learn javascript! Build the next facebook! Become a millionaire!"

This post does seem to be from someone who genuinely understands that unless you learn to program in a way you enjoy, and you stick at it through the rough and smooth, you're very likely to give up.</comment>


Ask HN: is there a lower-volume HN feed? - <AUTHOR>

Eg. featuring just posts that reach no.1 or similar.  The main feed is slight information overload! <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/best> (Highest voted recent links.)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/active> (Most active current discussions.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I meant feed as in RSS...that content-wise, those are exactly what I'm looking for. Just wanna get 'em in Google Reader!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> (And my Googling skills have failed me...)</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you get your Startup / Vc news? - <AUTHOR>

I saw a lot of hate today on Techcrunch. I don't like it very much either but I found it's the best source to get information on new startups that raise round / launched.<p>What other websites/blogs do you read to follow that kind of stuff? <comment><USER2> Dan Primack at Fortune puts out a daily newsletter called Term Sheet. It's focus is broader than startups and VCs. It also includes private equity and other institutions. But it's a fantastic way to stay up to date on major deals across all industries and sectors.

</comment><comment><USER2> Venture Beat and Pando Daily are also good resources. All three tend to run the same stories within a few minutes of one another.</comment>


Backdoor Found in Utility for Linux, Unix Servers - <AUTHOR> https://threatpost.com/backdoor-found-in-utility-for-linux/147581/ <comment><USER2> It's about Webmin, again. I really hate this "you need to click to find out what this article is about" trend in "journalism".

<comment><USER3> Hardly a trend. "FAMOUS ACTOR DIES" has been selling newspapers for as long as they have existed.</comment></comment>


On Editing Text (Operational Transforms from Category Theory) - <AUTHOR> http://bosker.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/on-editing-text/ <comment><USER2> Nice to see this resurface - I hope it gets as much attention as last time, perhaps even more now that HN has a larger community.

<comment><AUTHOR> Last time I read this I didn't have nearly enough Category Theory beneath me to get the last half, but now I can read it as a very general way to generate OT-systems for practically arbitrary "transformation" categories.

I don't know if that means I better understand pushouts or better understand OT.

<comment><USER2> Looking at how this item has fared, it's clear that something or someone has penalised it[0]. Shame, really, that a genuine technical article has fallen off the front page like that.

[0] [http://hnrankings.info/7706293/](http://hnrankings.info/7706293/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, interesting. I never realized that was a property of voting.

<comment><USER2> I don't understand what you mean. An item's ranking is a combination of it's points, time, and any penalties that get applied. If people flag it then it gets penalised, or if the mods decide for some reason to apply a penalty then it gets pushed down in the rankings. Getting votes makes it more likely that an item will make it to the front page.

Does that make sense?

There are plenty of write-ups about how the ranking system works if you want to know more. Or email - details in my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I was vague. I didn't realize there was a penalty system that flagging or modding could invoke. I had never investigated it and always assumed that if a post was flagged then it'd just be removed from HN.

In retrospect the system makes sense as is, but I'd just never considered it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> +1 for a perfectly cromulent article

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder: This could be usefull for compiling code?</comment>


SORM – An elegant and scalable way to do persistence in Scala - <AUTHOR> http://sorm-framework.org

<comment><USER2> I'm happy for scala community right now</comment>


The State of the Art in iOS 10 Test Automation - <AUTHOR> http://bitbar.com/the-state-of-the-art-in-ios-10-test-automation-frameworks/ <comment><USER2> I've had the worst experience in testing with Appium while working at Amazon. The test suite was extremely slow, unreliable, and tests are written in a language that's not native to the platform. The whole Appium testing interface is a hodgepodge UI that had a lot of broken UI interactions.

Our team members who were proponents of Appium made arguments like:

\- Business people can write test cases - That never happened

\- You can write cross platform tests - Yes, but we end up with all of these one of cases if iOS and Android aren't written with the exact same naming and design conventions which forced multiple testing paths anyways.

KIF is also not necessary anymore since Xcode 7+ support UI Test Case.

UI Test Case(for interaction), Unit Test Case(For Unit/Performance Tests), and Snapshot Testing[1] is way better combination. You write statically compiled Obj-C/Swift, tests run a lot faster, the build on the native xcodebuild toolchain, and your tests are maintained as a first class citizen.

[1] - [https://github.com/facebook/ios-snapshot-test- case](https://github.com/facebook/ios-snapshot-test-case)

<comment><USER3> Sadly, when I clicked the "up vote" button it disappeared so that I couldn't click it again...and again.

On my current project, the client was apparently standardizing on Appium. Ooookay, don't know why you're not using the included tools, but I'll give it a whirl. Sounds like something management, who will never use the tool in real life, got sold on because "cross-platform". But let's put my cynicism aside and give it a fair shot.

It took me several tries to get it installed. The documentation even says that if installation fails, try it a few more times. No, I'm not making that up. Once installed, configuration is a poorly-documented nightmare. But after half a day I have it working on iOS and Android.

As you point out, O...M...G is it slow. Now, I understand why and I don't necessarily blames the dev for the sixteen levels of abstractions this thing has to go through. But slow it is. Tests take a long time to run as they wind their way through the Xpath to get to the UI elements.

Writing test cases is even worse. No UI recorder to speak of to at least take a first whack at it. No good accessibility viewer tool to help with control names and characteristics. And since you kind of have to just guess-compile- run, combined with the slow runtime performance, even simple tests can take an hour to write.

"Business people can write test cases"? Did I miss this outstanding feature? I can barely get a test running, and I've been writing code for decades. And you're telling me some woman with a business degree is going to come in and start knocking out UI tests?

So after assuming that I must be the idiot in this equation given that I do not see the Highest Holiness of Appium that others must see, I started asking around. Hey, you, full-time SDET: you folks are using Appium, right? How's that going for you?

Turns out they've written about 20 tests, with an average of 60 seconds to run each individual tests. 20 minutes to run 20 tests. I'd planned on writing _hundreds_. Meaning it is entirely possible that the UI test suite I hoped to write would not be able to run on a single platform in a single work day. So much for running them at build time.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and cross-platform: I can barely get dev to put accessibility labels on stuff for a _single_ platform, let alone co-ordinate between the two. And unless the UI is mostly the same, using the same classes of controls with exactly the same accessibility labels (IOW, will never happen in the real world because we have other stuff to do), cross-platform is a pipe dream.

I realized that the Emperor has no clothes, and went back to using XCTest and Espresso.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I didn't detail the trails and tribulations of our experience but it was terrible. Our Appium test suite took 6+ hours to run and it falsely failed 100% of the time. We would finish a feature, check our code in run the test suite over night and things would be broken and then we'd have to manually verify the fixes were correct in the A.M. Then go back in and fix Appium.

I honestly wish I still had the link to the Wiki where I put my full Appium deep dive. Appium is great if you want to work on Appium and not actually build your own iOS or Android product.

<comment><USER3> _Appium is great if you want to work on Appium and not actually build your own iOS or Android product._

Reminds me of what I told our PM: "do want me to make a career of writing Appium tests, or would you like me to use the tooling of my choice and get other things done, too?" And my current role is SDET, meaning I have nothing better to do than write tests. I can't imagine making dev write their own tests in Appium. I mean, I guess it wouldn't be _that_ bad since you'd have no time for implementation, therefore making test writing a doddle. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> iOS 10 is the buggiest iOS I have seen so far. youtube starts playing in background when on a call mixing the audio. voicemails keep getting deleted when they reach 20 second mark. the screen freezes very frequently. swiping is confusing delete lock screen notifications and switch on the camera. is it bad product design or bad testing

<comment><AUTHOR> All that, plus it is damn hard to set up everything for test automation.</comment></comment>


Notable web-sites for Software developers? - <AUTHOR> Hi - I was just wondering if there is a resource or any website for software developers where they may be able to discuss with other developers regarding potential approach to building a particular... lets say a feature for a software.<p>For example: I am looking to build a search functionality for a website and want to discuss first with other developers and get their opinion on things with the approach I should be taking. Hope I have explained it well <comment><USER2> Well... HN for one or Reddit, r/programming and r/webdev would probably be logical places to ask/discuss such things.

As for web search, something like solr/elastic search or even just Postgres eg [http://rachbelaid.com/postgres-full-text-search-is-good- enou...](http://rachbelaid.com/postgres-full-text-search-is-good-enough/)

I used Postgres full text search (from Rails) and it was simple and easy to get going but never got beyond pilot stage so can't comment on longer term short comings/scaling issues that might exist for it.</comment>


The Internet Kill Switch - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/01/kill-switch/

<comment><USER2> I wrote this article (thanks for linking). If you have any corrections or issues feel free to bring them up here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, I am the same guy from Reddit, and I thank again for the article. It's very well written.</comment></comment>