Ask HN: Should I drop out of high school? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I'm a sophomore in a fairly good high school with a 5.1 GPA. I recently realized that most of the classes I'm taking (all honors) are kinda pathetic. Because the classes I take are easy and not relevant, I don't put forth any effort. My school specializes in athletics, and I want to start a business or go to college now, and start learning more. What I've seen is that in high school academia, is that it's really ~70% of the time spent pleasing other people or rapid memorization that I won't use in my life after high school. I'm really passionate about what I want to do, and I'm ready to go through with my decision. So is it worth it to take classes at my community college and get a GED to go to another college, or should I change my mentality and try in my classes and graduate early? <comment><USER2> No.

If you can, find a program like Washington State's Running Start: <http://www.k12.wa.us/RunningStart/default.aspx> .

Read pg's _What You'll Wish You'd Known_: <http://paulgraham.com/hs.html> and pay attention to the part about treating high school like your day job.

 _I'm really passionate about what I want to do, and I'm ready to go through with my decision._

You're passionate about what you do now -- but you may not be in six months, two years, or six years. If you don't even have a HS diploma, you'll be unfairly hamstrung in terms of your options then. Note that you might be passionate about what you're doing now and you might be passionate about doing what you're doing 60 years from now. But you might not be. To use pg's metaphor, try to stay upwind. And if you want to learn more, read more. School ends at 3:00. You still have a lot of time to do what you will.

In addition -- no offense -- there is a reasonably high chance that you think you know more than you do. I'm not trying to say this to be an asshole -- I'm saying it because you won't be the first high school student to think you're wildly more competent, capable, or intelligent than you are. I run into students like that all the time and told a story about one here: [http://jseliger.com/2010/10/02/how-to-get-your- professors%E2...](http://jseliger.com/2010/10/02/how-to-get-your- professors%E2%80%99-attention-or-how-to-get-the-coaching-and-mentorship-you- need) . You might also be the next Bill Gates, but the odds are good that you're not. If you drop out of high school because of what people on the Internet tell you, you may mess your life up in substantial ways that won't be easy to undo.

 _and I want to start a business or go to college now, and start learning more._

These are somewhat vague goals: if you said, "Here's the URL for my business and where I want to go with it" or "I want to learn X, Y, and Z in college," you'd have a more compelling case. As it is, what the other posters have said is mostly good advice: work toward getting into college sooner, rather than later. I will also say that you might be able to get more out of high school classes than you think if you try hard enough to.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Absolutely NOT. Take as many AP classes as you can. They are generally college level. You will find it much easier to get into the schools you really want if you actually graduate. Despite what people may say, GED's don't carry the same social weight as diplomas. A high school diploma is itself nothing more than to say that you passed the base level of societal education, but many people consider a GED to mean that you we're not even capable of achieving that low- level rung.

Do what you can to graduate early. THAT looks good. If you can finish in 2 or 2.5 years what takes most of us 4 years, and you can do it with a very high GPA, that's just all gold stars right there.

The other thing to keep in mind about graduating with a diploma is that of grants and scholarships. College is going to be _fucking expensive_. I'm assuming you're 15-17 years old. So you might not understand what fucking expensive really means in your bones, beyond "that's a lot of money". Don't take this as an insult or anything. I'm 30 years old and it took until I was like 27 to really, really understand how much "fucking expensive" really is. For me it was moving from South Florida where I was making at most $30k to SF where I've been making 2.5-3x that much as a salary.

Anyway, grants and scholarships are free money you don't have to pay back later. And when you're 25 looking to start a career and whatnot, you'll really appreciate not having massive loan payments to pay on a monthly basis.

I'm currently in the middle of my 2nd startup, and since you are here on HN I'll put my argument in those terms. Look at high school as your first startup. The only way its going to succeed is based on how much work and sacrifice you're willing to put into it. If you can make it through that, many other things in your life will be much easier.

</comment><comment><USER4> You may find some ideas in this that apply to your situation: <http://paulgraham.com/hs.html>

</comment><comment><USER5> why not just put forth enough effort to do well in your classes, and in your spare time, teach yourself how to do what you want to learn to do and start a business?

if you find high school trivial, you'll find community college isn't much better. and while university will be tougher, the curriculum is on rails. you'll find that once you graduate you may or may not have actually learned anything about what you really wanted to learn about.

experience is best.

<comment><USER6> I can't upvote this comment enough.

Elitism aside, high school curriculums are a joke. It will be easy, it will be a waste of time, and you probably won't learn much if you've already learned how to solve complex problems in abstract and invisible ways (programming).

That said, run the course and finish high school with a high GPA. Get the best technical degree from a college you can (of course money is an issue here, scholarships?) with some internships and a high-paced position at a growing start up and you'll be way on your way to success.

THOSE things said, take your spare energy and time to learn things that school or college won't teach you. For me, this was game programming, web design, n-teir architectures, SQL, databases, and web applications. None of this I learned in school, and I have a CS degree and graduated at the top of my class. Most well paying jobs with good opportunities require CS degress, but the Java-shop mentality they provide simply aren't enough to be successful.

Use your education as accreditation to get the attention you need from employers, and use your untapped potential and extra energy to gain the experience you need to stand out on a resume be an above-and-beyond contributor (I did this with experimental iPhone game development, web app development, check out www.scotthconner.com to see the projects I think fall under this category).

Finishing high-school is a must. Learning how to learn quickly and get shit done with little fuss is vital. Having a list of reasons you didn't finish school will count against you in every case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was in an early entrance program to U of North Texas back when highly- organized early entrance was a (very) newfangled creation. If you qualify for a large, on-campus early entrance program with plenty of kids your own age, you ought to go for it. If you Google for early entrance college, you'll find plenty of information.

The criteria for acceptance after 20-odd years of development of these programs correlates surprisingly well with whether or not someone your age ought to be in a more adult, independent setting. Thus, if you are accepted, that's a pretty good indicator that you're ready to go to the next level. If you aren't accepted, then you're probably not.

Having said that, you say that 70% of high school is spent pleasing other people and performing tasks of rote memorization that you don't think you'll ever use again. I have terrible news for you: 90% of most employment is about pleasing other people and rote memorization. Often the rote memorization is about memorizing the things that please other people so you can plan on doing them over and over again. In technical terms, it's called satisficing behavior. In real terms, it's why people demand to get paid to do their jobs.

Seriously though, early entrance. If you don't like high school and you can make it into something else, go for it. Go be with kids like you who want to do bigger things sooner. If it's appropriate for you, it's worth doing.

</comment><comment><USER8> You don't need to drop out of high school to start a business. Do both at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER9> No.

Just to add to the list of alternatives, I don't know where you live but several states have some sort of "talented and gifted" magnet school that might be more challenging/engaging for you. Many cities do as well, but you're probably well aware of local options.

There's also Bard College at Simon's Rock which accepts rising high school juniors and gives them a BA in 4 years (and is affiliated with a top tier liberal arts college). The timing for that is just about right.

Also, you may be interested to learn more about the "unschooling" movement. Some variation of that might be a good fit for you. Google "unschooling" or "John Taylor Gatto" for some background info.

Other people in this thread have discussed the drawbacks of a GED rather an a high school diploma, so I thought I'd share this one little anecdote:

One of my classmates in high school happened to have skipped a lot more grades than most. He was 12 in his junior year of high school, so I guess that made him 14 or 15 when he started college and around 19 when he graduated from undergrad.

He was a great kid. Clearly ridiculously smart but very modest and soft spoken. Everyone seem to like him. But he didn't really have "friends" per se. Everyone was nice to him, but everyone treated him like a kid brother.

I ran into him at our 15 year high school reunion and we had a long chat. Looking back on it as a happy, successful and established adult, one thing he clearly regretted about his life is that he never really had a college or a high school "experience", he just went to classes. And he regretted it.

My point is that there is more to the high school experience than what you're being taught in class. Sure, you can skip it, but be aware that you're trading away something with real value, sometimes even when it doesn't seem like it is. I don't think that should make your decision for you, but it's another thing to throw on the "no" side of the scales.

Also, I think the deck is generally stacked against you as 15 year old high school drop out trying to succeed as an entrepreneur. Gaining a little bit more life experience (quite possibly doing fun and exciting things that aren't like high school) might make you a better entrepreneur. You'll understand your customers, partners and employees better.

(inb4 "Fool, YC has had several successful 18/19 year old founders." I know. That's not the same situation as this.)

<comment><USER10> I'm an alumnus of Simon's Rock and highly recommend it. I went in thinking I would get my AA and transfer but I stayed for my BA. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the school.

It's technically still considered dropping out of high school though :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There are a lot of social benefits to going into college at a typical age. Your social circles in college will be severely affected if you are much younger than everyone else.

I don't see the rush. I'm sure there are certain cases where it makes sense to skip ahead, but sounds like it's not a slam dunk in your case. Start a business in high school? Maybe enjoy the ride.

<comment><USER12> This was my father's view. Based on his negative feelings about having gone through school ahead of his age cohort, he didn't let any of his kids skip grades.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You should absolutely not drop out. Leave high school with a diploma, no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER14> Do your best to stay in classes and graduate early. At the same time, you can work on something on the side. Time management is something that they dun teach in school. If things work out for your side project, hire someone to run things for you. That's something that they dun teach in school too. School is the place for you to meet people, social and build network. They will come in useful in the future.

</comment><comment><USER15> Things to consider:

1) If you drop out (to work on a business), nobody's making you jump through hoops every day any more. It can take about a year to adjust to this. You'll probably be doing nothing useful for a while.

2) Doing real things in the real world is much, much harder than it looks. If you don't have visible achievements that make you employable, don't drop out.

</comment><comment><USER16> Does being in school make you miserable? If so, compare that feeling to the way you think you would feel if the worst that could happen if you drop out actually happens. If the risk of dropping out doesn't bother you, there's your answer.

</comment><comment><USER17> Today, start applying for early admission to colleges and universities.

In the short term, stay in school and don't use "it's pathetic" as an excuse for poor performance in your classes.

The better your grades, the better your chance of early admission.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you give up on this now, you'll be giving up your whole life.

</comment><comment><USER19> Keep kicking ass and get yourself in the best university possible. Like Noodle said "teach yourself" the other skills.

Find your passion and then go hard!

</comment><comment><USER20> Take college courses at night. That's what I did in high school.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think you should quit. Just self-teach, sit in on college courses to learn what you want to learn, and forge ahead.

Just be sure to set the bar high on the skills you self-teach, and go out of your way to find others like yourself who are motivated to skip the 6-10 year period of extended adolescence that our culture grants young adults to "find themselves".

Finding some people who you can collaborate with and who are roughly at the same stage as you socially/developmentally will help make life fun and exciting... and I've found that people who are roughly the same age tend to come to trust each other more easily, which is important in many business contexts.

If I had it to do over again I'd strongly consider dropping out of HS and focusing on learning and doing really cool stuff for a few years, possibly including a bit of travel to get a more global perspective, then when you're 18-23ish be sure to head to a college town find some interesting people who are in college and maybe sit in on a few of their classes or even enroll for a term or two as a non-degree / part time student to meet people and get a taste of the college experience.

When I think back to all the mind numbing hours of high school and all the stupid social stuff I don't wish it on anyone. It's way overrated. If you're not a jock you're just learning how to be content being a second class citizen, which is not a skill anyone should learn.

<comment><USER22> Hmm, this is well-written yet downvoted to -2. I think grandalf is right.

School is supposed to be about knowledge, but more and more it's becoming about going through the motions to get an overvalued piece of paper. You could take those many hours you would waste in school and put them to more productive use: building cool stuff, learning about more important things, etc. There's not much school can teach you that Wikipedia can't. I think having an impressive portfolio would be _way_ more valuable than an Ivy League diploma.

I dropped out of college after two years. My parents gave me what was left of my college fund (about $20,000) and I lived off that for a few years. I have yet to hit profitability, but I think I will. And I know I've learned more on my own than I would've learned in school. And if I had to, I think the stuff I've built and the skills I've gained would make it easy enough to get a decent job. Maybe you could make a similar deal with your parents (they give you the money they would've spent on college and you live off of it for several years).

You definitely need to solve the money issue somehow. If you don't have it, you're liable to get stuck in a dead end job. And you definitely shouldn't do this unless you've got what it takes to educate yourself and do good work without someone forcing you to.

Probably the most important thing you get out of school and college is interacting with other smart people on a regular basis. Find some other way of doing that and you should be good.</comment></comment>


Silicon Valley's Unchecked Arrogance - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-development-set/silicon-valley-s-unchecked-arrogance-d86cbb8db52#.sa3uwnjd1 <comment><USER2> This reads like somebody just wanting to complain.

YC says that their startups need to move to SF/SV? Yeah, they do. They do it because they see real, concrete value for a startup being there. YC has actual experience with startups, so they have a reasonable basis for knowing what they're talking about. This isn't "Silicon Valley Arrogance", it's some people who are actually involved seeing that there are concrete benefits to being in SF/SV.

YC is talking about basic income because they think SV's going to have all the money and everyone else is going to be left behind? YC's talking about basic income because they _see_ people being left behind, and they actually care enough to want to do something about it. That's not arrogance; it's observation plus compassion.</comment>


The lost Doves Press typeface and its revival (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/the-gorgeous-typeface-that-drove-men-mad-and-sparked-a-1686081182 <comment><USER2> Previous related threads:

2015 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9951869](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9951869)

2013 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6964013](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6964013)

<comment><USER3> The TrueType font is still embedded in the specimen PDF.

<comment><USER4> Not that ripping it from there has become any more legal in the meantime.

<comment><USER5> This is an honest question, but how can they charge for something they do not own? I mean, wouldn't you be able to use those letter forms just like they are?

<comment><USER6> In the article the creator of the font said that they see it as "an echo or a simulacrum", IANAL, but i would say that that recreation is a work of its own under at least copyright law. And ignoring the legal angle for a moment, they did put a lot of work into it, so asking money for it is not wrong imho

<comment><USER4> Though the irony of charging money for type design that was thrown in the river to prevent a certain someone from doing so is not lost on me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For some reason, seeing an old type, I jump straight to see what the thorn character looked like. Cool to see it in there, curious if it was originally up with the rest of the common letters in older sorting.</comment>


Async data loading in React on client and server [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwhKU1OM1DY <comment><AUTHOR> TL;DW: This is my recent talk at React Edinburgh about the problem of loading data asynchronously (especially on the server) in React applications when React itself is synchronous.

I first talk about the problem, then one way to solve it: a library called react-frontload[0]

[0] [https://github.com/davnicwil/react- frontload](https://github.com/davnicwil/react-frontload)</comment>


The World's First Self-Driving Semi-Truck Hits the Road - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/05/worlds-first-self-driving-semi-truck-hits-road/ <comment><USER2> What happens to the out-of-work truckers? Next-gen #highwayrobbery. [https://medium.com/@AreDangerousMen/h-gh-n00n-bb645b6e04b1](https://medium.com/@AreDangerousMen/h-gh-n00n-bb645b6e04b1)</comment>


Ask HN: Another party trademarked our trading name - <AUTHOR>

I've been running a couple of eCommerce sites under a trading name since 2008 which bring in several thousand dollars in revenue per month (mainly through Google). We use and have several of the domain names (ie .co.uk, .com.au, .co.nz) for the trading name. <comment><USER2> This might help. [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/03/python...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2013/03/python-wins-trademark-dispute-rival-stops-calling-itself- python/)

and/or this: [http://lahserpatent.com/another-company-trademarked-my- busin...](http://lahserpatent.com/another-company-trademarked-my-business- name/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the links. Most of the issue is identifying the cost-benefit of pursuing etc.</comment></comment>


Justin.tv brings live broadcasting to Linux - <AUTHOR> http://apiwiki.justin.tv/mediawiki/index.php/Linux_Broadcasting_API

<comment><USER2> And this time they're using x264; it seems like they value their bandwidth!

One thing that should be better-documented are Justin.TV-side bitrate restrictions; I assume that they don't want users broadcasting 1-2 megabit DVD-quality streams over their network, but nothing of the sort is listed in the guide.

Additionally, there's the matter of constant bitrate requirements: H.264 streaming works under a leaky buffer model based on two parameters, the rate and buffer size. For optimal performance Justin.TV should document what buffer size they set on the viewers' Flash players so that the encoder settings can be set accordingly. For example, let's say that Justin.TV uses a 2 second buffer:

I pick a constant bitrate of 500kbps. (bitrate=500)

I set the maxrate to 500. (vbv-maxrate=500)

I set the bufsize to 500x2 = 1000. (vbv-bufsize=1000)

If the buffer in the encoder is _greater_ than that used by Justin.TV, it's possible for the stream to drop out for viewers during local bitrate spikes, so getting it right is important, especially at higher bitrates (at 300kbps you probably don't have to care much).

Another issue to note is latency. Total latency in a connection is as follows:

(Encoder-side latency) + (Network latency) + (Decoder buffer size)

x264's default encoder-side latency is about 40 frames in the latest version; if anyone's interested in how to lower that for a low-latency stream, I can give more information.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually we don't have any bitrate limitations. I've seen users push 8mb streams before, but most people chose lower bitrates because very few viewers have the bandwidth and CPU required to enjoy those streams.

You make a very good point about VBR, thanks for bringing that up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does Justin.tv have a non-Flash way of viewing streams? While creating one without Flash is awesome, it's still annoying to have Adobe's horrible Flash implementation crash (and or bloat) watching two-three hour streams.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does justin.tv pay for their bandwidth from revenue generated or from funding?

</comment><comment><USER5> Super cool. Can't wait for Mac.

<comment><USER6> Targeting Linux before Mac OS X seems like a very odd choice.

<comment><USER7> We already had several ways to broadcast from Windows and OS X, but no way to broadcast from Linux. Given that, it made sense to make this available as soon as the Linux version was ready, without waiting to work all of the bugs out of the Mac version.</comment></comment></comment>


RightJS vs jQuery Mano A Mano (clean test comparison) - <AUTHOR> http://st-on-it.blogspot.com/2009/12/rightjs-vs-jquery-mano-o-mano.html

<comment><USER2> Sorry to say, but at least one of your tests still suffers from a non apples to apples problem. Specifically the "make" tests. The jquery make test does parsing of strings into dom elements and various appends. The rightjs make test is just a wrapper for DOM creation. That's not even close to the same thing.

<comment><USER3> It's arguable that a) if they do the same and thing and b) it is the _accepted_ way to do that thing in each framework than it is surely a fair test?

:)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is arguable. For this reason I left the thing in one single test.

So that you have a choice. If you disagree, then you don't count this line, if you do agree then you count it.

Either way RightJS comes faster

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Browsers were desgined from the beginning to parse HTML fast. JavaScript was added later and optimized much later. Doing e.innerHTML = "some markup" will be faster than making function calls to do createElement, etc. because these calls have to go between JS and the underlying C(++) environments and back. And knowing that I might optimize my code accordingly where it might make a difference. In other words if I am adding 500 elements to a document I am going to do it by making the browser parse HTML, which will not involve the JS lib at all. Doing this kind of a test is useless since it will never happen in the wild. Instead let's test selector speeds etc. We could also test event handler assignment but here too i would use jQuery's live() and then binding takes almost no time for any number of elements.

<comment><AUTHOR> Igor, as I said below, testing elements building is only one test and you can ignore it if disagree.

> Instead let's test selector speeds etc.

Actually this is what's pointless, both of the frameworks do it by using native features of the modern browsers and results will about the same for any framework.

> i would use jQuery's live() and then binding takes almost no time for any > number of elements.

Are you sure about that?

<comment><USER4> Live binds one event handler to a parent element and then simply watches for any events of that type to bubble up. bind adds 500 handlers to 500 elements. live is faster in theory. Will write a test to show in practice.

Yes simple selectors are pointless. How about '.Class .child:visible:not(.test):eq(1)'?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Live binds one event handler to a parent element and then simply watches for > any events

It's kinda different story and rather a hack than a standard approach. And it's not always a cace, because it will handle the callbacks slower than a direct bind and therefore not always appropriate.

In any case it's not what the test is intended to do. We test standard operations, that's all. Testing live with bind is like comparing apples with oranges.

> How about '.Class .child:visible:not(.test):eq(1)'?

Do you mean non-standard css-selectors? There is nothing to test, rightjs simply doesn't support them

With rightjs you always can do it like that

$$('.class').filter('visible');

<comment><USER4> While event delegation doesn't work 100% of the time (e.g. when another piece of code that uses capture instead of bubbling such as google maps API), I wouldn't consider it a hack. Of course event handling will be slower but we can test how much slower :).

You can do that with jQuery as well and that's an ineresting performance comparison in itself. E.g. $('.class:visible:not(:eq(1))') vs $('.class').filter(':visible').not(':eq(1)'). I suspect it heavily depends on the size of the DOM tree and the number of elements.

<comment><AUTHOR> At the beginning you're kinda was against the "make" test, because there is no such thing in jQuery, and now you practically offer the same thing, to test something that does exist in jQuery but doesn't in RighJS.

You should choose already what do you stand for.

But anyway, if you want to test it go ahead, you know where the code is. I suppose jQuery handles virtual selectors via JavaScript and therefore there will be no serious difference in performance. I even suspect that a single additional function in the filter method in RightJS will still work faster than several internal selectors in jQuery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That should be mano-a-mano, surely?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mano-a-mano>

<comment><AUTHOR> fixed. thanks for heads up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's interesting that your test shows that insert after is slower on jQuery 1.4 than on 1.3 since the release notes for 1.4a says "append, prepend, etc. have been heavily optimized." How about adding append and prepend to the test suite?

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay I've added it to the test.

Insert element bottom 48 131 169

Insert element on top 48 134 167

Don't know about the release notes, my test says 1.4 is slower than 1.3.2

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can someone explain me, how PureDom can be slower?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not slower, PureDom is faster in most of the tests, there are just couple of tests insert/before/after that seems have slower implementation, don't really now why.

It's not RightJS only, Dojo and YUI win in those tests too.

Generally speaking PureDom is still faster than RightJS. It has to be.

<comment><USER6> Thanks! P.S. For some reason I can't up-vote.

<comment><AUTHOR> no problem

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> btw, very good self-promotion. I admire your effort, self-esteem and courage! There are lots of programmers who were afraid to attract such attention to their products.</comment>


My £60 ARM server - <AUTHOR> http://www.ewanleith.com/blog/956/my-60-arm-server <comment><USER2> Personally I wouldn't trust a microSD card for any production role beyond being a bootloader. You'll be paged one day only to find you had to make a time-consuming visit to your co-lo, and that all your data was irretrievably gone.

The solution to this is to have one "real" PC acting as a NAS and serving iSCSI. You would have to divide the extra cost of this PC across all the ARM servers you have.

<comment><USER3> Micro SD are notoriously bad for server usage, they are designed to store infrequently changed files for a while, like mp3 collection, cameraphone snapshots, apps etc... Going with a brand name might help.

In order to extend their lifespan, you might want to minimize the writes by disabling some logs and the "last access" updates on files (`noatime` for "no access times").

Some examples: [http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/09/04/four-tweaks-for- usi...](http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/09/04/four-tweaks-for-using-linux- with-solid-state-drives/)

<comment><USER4> Instead of disabling the logs, you can put them on a tmpfs. You'll lose them if the machine crashes or reboots, but it's still better than not having them at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "[...] ARM servers are a big part of the future [...]"

Has anyone actually compared x86 and ARM doing some sort of comparable task, and measured how much power they both consume performing the same task? I know ARM uses a lot less power than x86, but if it uses 10 times as little power but takes 20 times as long to do the same task as an x86 server chip, it still uses more power. I'm not saying it isn't more power efficient than x86 (it certainly has that potential, because of all the old cruft in x86), but I just haven't seen any evidence that supports this claim.

Or am I missing the point? Is power efficiency not the main reason for ARM servers?

<comment><USER6> In many server applications your not CPU bound but rather IO bound. In those applications using the lowest power CPU makes sense. These are the applications ARM seems to be targeting first. Examples: $5 month static + php only website hosting market, front end load balancing, static file serving, etc.

The other possible target is embarrassingly parallel work loads where you really just want to cram as many cores into a given space as possible. Usually the limit of how many cores you can put in a rack is either power or cooling, not space.

Where you probably won't see ARM in the near term is on work loads that are highly single threaded and performance critical. I think this is exactly the type of situation your describing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I also use a small ARM server (SheevaPlug) since about two years and it can hold up easily to VPS hosting. It runs everything I would run on a "normal" server (Lighty, Dovecot-IMAP etc.), but needs nearly no power in comparison.

<comment><AUTHOR> The SheevaPlug is cool, but it seems like the newest ones have gone a slightly different route and thrown everything you could possibly want at it - wifi, bluetooth, audio, etc?

That's all nice stuff, but just adds to the power and price for what should be a dirt cheap, almost disposable, piece of equipment.

Though I would definitely appreciate gigabit ethernet on the beaglebone...

<comment><USER8> You can disable most of the extra stuff... I think all the options make these devices much more flexible.

If you wanted a dirt-cheap, more modular component you'd be looking at Arduino or Raspberry Pi, not a plug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I build a couple of ARM "servers" out of a PandaBoard (dual core + 1 GB RAM) and a self-made case (lasercutter)

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmoriz/sets/72157629535790241>

<http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:18645>

They're running Linaro, the Ubuntu-ARM-development-fork by ARM/Linaro.org

<comment><USER10> Whoa! It's like a micro-server and a makerbot mated. Nice!

<comment><USER9> I even made a cheesy video ;-) <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX61U_q6ksg>

Board: <http://pandaboard.org/>

OS: <http://www.linaro.org/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another site that is unreadable on a mobile device because the options to share the content are hiding the content itself.

Is there any browser/browser & extension to remove that... stuff? Maybe an adblock filter, a greasemonkey script or something similar?

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone else pointed that out, it's not good is it?

I've disabled the AddThis bar while I look into it (the caches might keep it alive for a while though), hopefully there's a suitable solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I plan to do a very similar thing with my Raspberry Pi.

<comment><USER13> I want to replace my router with a Raspberry Pi, but seems impossible to buy one

<comment><USER12> Just to make you feel bad, I've just been notified mine got shipped and I'll get it soon :)

They are getting sent, just slowly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Anyone else blocked by the stupid cloudflare scam about not having 3rd party cookies enabled meaning you have virus on your computer? And preventing them from reading the article?

<comment><USER14> Huh? I browse constantly with third party cookies disabled in Safari and Chrome and never have a problem. I can see that site perfectly. And that's certainly not how CloudFlare decides that your machine is likely to be infected.

What are you seeing when you visit the site?

<comment><USER3> I was browsing with firefox with 3rd party cookies disabled, and I saw this message a few times. What irks me and triggered my kvetching is that I "played the game" and did submitted the captcha 3 times and it still didn't work. Twice in Firefox and once in Safari in private browsing mode.

Here is a screenshot, with my I.P. address at the bottom:

<http://imgur.com/n9xFG>

It looks scam-y too with the "google pays me $x a day" and "automated profit package" ads.

P.S.: I remember seeing it on a blog post on jgc.org at least once, as well as on joyoftech a ago but not today.

<comment><USER14> Thanks. I'll take this up with the folks in San Francisco and see why you were seeing that.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for looking into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cool for a personal server, but there's one large downside—everything's soldered on. Upgrading a server like this isn't really possible. And what if something breaks? Unlike commodity hardware of the past, you can't just take the server out, fix the broken component, and stick it back. Before ARM servers take off, manufacturers will have to make components replaceable.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think as long as the price remains under $100, the manufacturers will consider the whole device a replaceable part on it's own.

It'd be a bit like sending out a hard drive component for an engineer to replace, when the drive itself costs $100, it's just not worth the effort for 99% of installations.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps, but for now, it's cheaper to make a data center out of traditional commodity hardware.

Let's say that a hard drive (or whatever storage device) has a failure rate of 1% over 1 year. With traditional hardware, for every 100 computers you have, you'll replace 1 hard drive. A new hard drive will cost a fraction of the machine's initial price, let's say 1/5. So maintenance costs for storage devices are 1/500 the initial costs per year, maybe a bit more if you factor in the cost of the labor.

Now if you make the same cluster of servers out of ARM hardware, let's say you'll need 4x the number of machines to get the same processing power. That's 400 machines. If the storage devices on these machines have the same failure rate, you'll need to replace 4 machines per year. However, since you're buying a new machine, you're don't get to pay for just the storage device. It costs you 4/400, or 1/100 the initial cost to maintain the storage devices for your ARM cluster per year.

A huge assumption here is that both types of hardware have similar initial costs. So the point here is that it'll always be cheaper to compartmentalize your losses, unless ARM devices are _much_ cheaper than traditional commodity hardware. Intuitively, throwing away a whole machine when something breaks is going to be a lot more expensive than just replacing the broken part. I don't imagine that it's extremely difficult to make parts replaceable on ARM boards, and it would definitely save some money, so I don't see why it shouldn't be done.

(Also, I realize that the Beaglebone uses SD cards, which are cheap and replaceable. But imagine that instead of storage devices, I'd used memory for the example)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I use my two Open Pandora's as build servers. They work just like any other PC in the house, with the difference that they can be easily unplugged and pocketed, as well. Fantastic little machines, and once you get a development environment up and running, they function extremely well.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd love to see a Aubrey Isle like processor based on ARM cores - with many ARM cores sharing a 2 GB pool of fast memory.

The Intel cores on the Aubrey Isle chip are fairly large and take up most of the silicon on the die. An ARM-based design would be much smaller and cheaper to manufacture.

Now that I said it, I wonder how much more expensive would be a RAM chip incorporating an ARM core versus pure memory. It would be interesting to have "smart memory" that could do things like "sha-384 this range and ping me back when you're done". Assuming other threads are not using that same component for other activities, it could be done basically "for free".

<comment><USER18> Best thing about ARM? It's cheap, so you can just pick and choose between distributed or shared memory models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If it had a lot more memory that would be interesting.

Though really you can get a 256Mb VPS for £5/month <http://prgmr.com/xen/> and you don't have a setup charge or unreliable hardware.

<comment><USER2> ARM has strange limits on the amount of memory. The Versatile architecture supports up to 256 MB max. The Versatile Express architecture has a 2GB limit (and no PCI!)

Then you have to remember that ARM is presently 32 bit, so you're going to have trouble going over 4 GB at all, which is currently a very small amount for a serious server. 64 bit ARM isn't going to be widely available for at least another 2 years, and at what cost we just don't know (but it's not likely to be £60/server).

<comment><USER6> The Cortex-A15 can address 1TB of ram, its still 32bit so there is the requisite per process limit. Last I heard Cortex-A15 SoC's will be available in volume this year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There have been mentions on the OpenStack mailing list of various experiments NTT is doing with ARM servers. I don't think there is much information public about it yet though.

</comment><comment><USER21> HP has their Project Moonshot which is a rack server solution using multiple Calxeda ARM servers attached to a main board for power and networking.

[HP] <http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/iss/110111.aspx>

[Engadget] [http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/02/hp-and-calxedas- moonshot-...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/02/hp-and-calxedas-moonshot-arm- servers-will-bring-all-the-boys-to/)

</comment><comment><USER22> On a related note, VIA makes small motherboards with embedded CPU's. They're not as cheap, but they act more like "real" pc hardware, are i386/686 compatible and use very little power.

I've run a fan-less EPIA board at home for a couple of years, and it's nice. Took some time to find the right board though..

<http://www.viaembedded.com/en/products/boards/>

</comment><comment><USER23> Checkout TonidoPlug2 (<http://www.tonidoplug.com/tonido_plug.html>). It has 512 MB DDR3 RAM, Gigabit Ethernet, WiFi b/g/n and in-built enclosure for SATA II HDD. You can boot it directly from the SATA instead of internal flash. All the right things you need in a personal server. Also it runs debian squeeze.

</comment><comment><USER24> I run a GuruPlug with filesystems on a LVM volume built from e-sata and usb hard drives. It's very fine for my personal needs, except the GP's crazy heat output. What I hope is that some manufacturer built ARM boards with loads of SATA controllers. That way one could build a very affordable large NAS's.

</comment><comment><USER25> If someone (looking at SanDisk) were to make a range of SD cards for servers and lightweight ARM desktops that would be of real interest. Because the current stuff out there for phones and cameras is of variable quality and is about the worst thing about these new lightweight arm systems.

</comment><comment><USER26> Interesting article but pls fix website for mobile readers <http://twitpic.com/9o9q35>

I would have commented on your blog but on Firefox the "about me" floats over the disqus column so I can't.

<comment><USER27> I've noticed most HN posts from blogs suffer this issue... I was thinking of a "Your Site Doesn't Work On Mobile" notification service...

<comment><USER26> YES DO IT (I would help if I had spare time, I'll just wish you good luck instead)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _"Micro-SD card performance is highly variable, and generally rubbish"_

Agree with that. I use a pandaboard as a build server and I felt it is a lot efficient to use NFS than running off an SD card.

Ewan, have you tried USB HDD instead of SD card?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that's probably the next experiment, I'm not sure if I'd got for a HDD or a very small USB SSD to keep the power usage down - at the moment it's under 0.5W, a HDD will be several times that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is anyone eyeing the new Atom for servers? Thinking about a bunch for a modest low power cluster. <http://goo.gl/fWdwd>

</comment><comment><USER29> Very cool, I've been wanting to do something similar with a personal server for some time.

</comment><comment><USER30> Excellent idea!

</comment><comment><USER31> use Marvell's sheevaplug is better off for this. beaglebone is really for industrial control, beagleboard are for generic purpose while pandaboard is for mobile computing. SD cards are made for consumer class cameras, but you can buy industrial level SLC SD, for $50 per 4GB, in that case I will just go with SSD.</comment>


Why Apple Wants to Get into the Unprofitable World of Payments Between Friends - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/why-apple-wants-to-get-into-the-unprofitable-world-of-payments-between-friends <comment><USER2> I feel that they have missed that train. There are ubiquitous products (Venmo), and powerful competitors (Facebook Messenger Pay, or however they call it). If they want Apple Pay to gain traction, they need to make it more useful.

My personal wishlist item is being able to pay at a restaurant with my phone, without ever asking the waiter for the tab.

Right now this requires multiple legs:

      1. Ask waiter for check (first trip)
      2. they go print it out and come back with it (second trip)
      3. I hand over my CC, and they take it to the register (third trip)
      4. They return with my credit card, and now I can finally leave the restaurant.

This is annoying for everyone. The waiter has to do multiple trips to just handle the transaction without providing any meaningful value (as opposed to recommendation entres, for example). For me it's annoying because I want to leave, but I am essentially trapped until the whole dance completes.

A beefed up Apple Pay would be so cool for this scenario.

<comment><USER3> A lot of restaurants run a very thin profit margin, around 7%: 33% food cost, 33% labor cost, 30% overhead, and 7% profit. This doesn't account for the ridiculousness that is open table and urban spoon. Often the owner has a salary position which is included in the labor cost. One place where profit can be increased is not throwing out food and portion control. The other way to increase profit is being paid cash. Nobody uses cash anymore. A 2% to 3% fee on all credit card transactions eats into that 7% profit, a lot. If Apple can make it profitable to charge 1% transaction fee or a per transaction fee like ATM transactions, they will do very well in the restaurant industry. Moreover, if their app integrated into the POS system and is used widely, they can step on opentable's toes offering discounts and reservations. I know one chef who instead of opening a 40 seat or 120 seat restaurant, opened a 23 seat restaurant and didn't accept credit cards, cash only. He always had a line out the door and made a lot more money than his previous position as an executive chef at a hotel in Beverly Hills. I would love to have a developer's license to the NCR Aloha POS SDK.

<comment><USER4> LevelUp helps small businesses aggregate credit card transactions to decrease the fees ([https://www.thelevelup.com/](https://www.thelevelup.com/)). I'm not affiliated with them. It's a nice service that seems to be most prevalent in Boston.

<comment><USER3> My friend developed an online ordering app for busy bars called SpeedeTab.[1] Being able to order a drink and pay at the same time from a phone is very nice. When the drink is ready the phone gets a push notification. The bartender verifies the transaction number of the phone. Because they are doing credit card transactions in bulk they got a very decent discount and they passed that onto the bars and coffee shops like you mentioned with LevelUp. For restaurants, getting the transaction fees at around 1% is a big deal because that is a lot of the net profit. I haven't heard about LevelUp yet, lot has changed in the past 10 years, and I'm out of the loop now.

[1] [http://www.speedetab.com/](http://www.speedetab.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It could be you're missing the big picture.

Margin on a single transaction? >x%

Building out the already STUPENDOUS iTunes database of payment credentials?

Priceless.

Yes, low margin while you attack the beachhead. Once you secure that, and apply the 'We're Apple' reality distortion in order to wrangle standards that you control... Money magic happens.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting. PayPal started as peer to peer, and then stopped offering it in favor of consumer-to-business payments.

There's an unserved market, but it's low end. Many people going to teller windows in banks are depositing cash to someone else's account to pay rent. This can be done even if the payer doesn't have an account at that branch. A deposit of cash is an immediate credit and can't bounce, so landlords like this. The depositor gets a receipt, so they can prove they paid. There's no fee for a cash deposit, so it's free to both parties.

For people with money in the bank, there are many easy ways to pay rent, but for people with little cash, this is the way to go. ATMs won't do such transactions, require an account, and will suck up your cash if you're overdrawn.

</comment><comment><USER7> Now not only will my friends not iMessage me to come out, I won't be able to split the tab.

</comment><comment><USER8> Because it's extra convenience and another reason to get an iDevice?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I think that alone is good enough reason for them to do it. The scale of iOS is massive enough that this can be another one of those "things that make people annoyed when their friends don't have an iPhone".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is a lousy business for Apple, but they can probably a minimum fee of much less than 25 cents.

</comment><comment><USER11> An article on peer-2-peer payments, and not a single mention of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies?

<comment><USER12> Makes sense, they aren't relevant to most people.

<comment><USER13> Correct. P2P payments brought to you by profit-seeking, privacy-invading mega- companies are not relevant to most people.

<comment><USER12> No no, bitcoin.

Venmo, for example, is extremely useful.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mountain Lion - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/mountain_lion

<comment><USER2>
      > That mindset and development schedule — "What can we do
      > to make this nicer by next year?" — may well be the most
      > important thing from iOS that Apple has taken back to
      > the Mac.

Did they really take that from iOS though?

From Wikipedia:

        Version         Codename        Release Date
        </comment><comment>-         </comment><comment>--        </comment><comment></comment><comment>
        Mac OS X 10.0   Cheetah         March 24, 2001
        Mac OS X 10.1   Puma            September 25, 2001
        Mac OS X 10.2   Jaguar          August 24, 2002
        Mac OS X 10.3   Panther         October 24, 2003
        Mac OS X 10.4   Tiger           April 29, 2005
        Mac OS X 10.5   Leopard         October 26, 2007
        Mac OS X 10.6   Snow Leopard    August 28, 2009
        Mac OS X 10.7   Lion            July 20, 2011
        OS X 10.8       Mountain Lion   July 25, 2012

I could just as easily say that Apple was "learning from their early development," or "getting back to basics."

<comment><USER3> Aren't a "Puma" and a "Mountain Lion" the same animal?

<comment><USER4> I think panther and leopard too.

<comment><USER5> just FYI, I learned recently[0] that "black panthers" can actually refer to either jaguars, leopards or possibly other "black" variants of large cats.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _How else can they (Microsoft) compete with the iPad but than to switch to > an Apple-style schedule of annual incremental updates?_

> _That mindset and development schedule — "What can we do to make this nicer > by next year?" — may well be the most important thing from iOS that Apple > has taken back to the Mac._

His last couple paragraphs got me thinking... If Microsoft wants to sell hardware, they'll have a better chance of succeeding if they release Windows versions faster... Apple sold a ton of 4Ss, because it was faster, had more ram and a much better camera. But, also because of Siri, a software feature.

And Google/Asus Nexus 7, from everything I hear, is a fabulous 7" tablet. But much of its greatness is because of Android 4.1. How can Microsoft compete with these devices if they want to take their time releasing new versions of Windows every 2-3 years?

<comment><USER7> I don't think Microsoft can reasonably compete with Apple in the hardware game. Apple's too good, and they have too much practice. I'm still shocked at their Surface tablet strategy, as I think a lot of people are. They don't have a particularly good track record recently, given the manufacturing problems with the Xbox.

I'm guessing that Microsoft's strategy still lies in software (a healthy combination of Windows, Office, and Business [Windows Server, SQL Server, SharePoint, etc]), entertainment (Xbox, Skype), and "cloud" offerings (Azure, Live, etc).

I think that their release strategy, where they release a "major" update every 2+ years, isn't inheriently _wrong_. It's still viable, and meshes well with a lot of the corporate money they're chasing. But I do think with the low price point of Windows 8, they realize that there is less and less money to be made in the consumer OS space, and more potential money to be made in servers and services.

<comment><USER8> >I don't think Microsoft can reasonably compete with Apple in the hardware game. Apple's too good, and they have too much practice.

MS is good at hardware but the problem is margins and the lack of proper leadership. Apple has been building this manufacturing advantage for a decade and can get a cheaper price because of their high volumes of their orders. It doesn't hurt to have essentially created three new markets as well during that span.

>But I do think with the low price point of Windows 8, they realize that there is less and less money to be made in the consumer OS space, and more potential money to be made in servers and services.

I'd also add that Apple and Google are both splitting the PC market with tablets which means even far less future revenues from Windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >> (Facebook integration is not included in OS X 10.8; Apple says it will come in a software update "this fall".)

sudo rm -rf facebook_integration && say 'not on MY machine'

<comment><USER10> If it works like the Twitter integration it won't be problem. You have to explicitly enter your name and password in the preferences. It won't bug you, it won't even be visible until you decide to take part. You have to care about it as much as you now care about the Chinese services Apple integrated.

Though I really do not understand your allergic reaction. Facebook seems like a tremendously useful tool to me since I always know that everyone is there. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it – but you should at least be able to appreciate how valuable such an integration is to a great many people.

<comment><USER9> >> I really do not understand your allergic reaction

Two reasons. 1) I dislike Facebook. They have little regard for privacy and I see interaction with the site as mostly a cheapening of friendships. Everything about it - from "friend our company on Facebook and we'll enter you in a drawing" to the data-mining advertising model - makes my skin crawl. 2) Why is Apple picking services to integrate? I can install a Facebook app if I want it. I wouldn't want them pre-installing a pizza ordering app from their favorite pizza company. Let _me_ pick. If I didn't ask for it, it's backroom- deal crapware, same as the pre-installed antivirus on cheap Windows boxes.

<comment><USER11> I have to agree that seems a little petty.

Facebook is a top 2 website on the internet, with ~845 million users last I checked. Do you really think that it had to be a 'backroom deal' for a technology company to want to integrate with the second largest internet company in the world? (First largest if you ignore direct competitors) Does it really surprise you that they would integrate in such a way?

To put it bluntly, it shouldn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This has been the first Gruber article I didn't want to claw my eyes out while reading from blatant fanboyism. I honestly felt like it was a good overview of what Mountain Lion represents. I (much like Gruber) do not think Microsoft's $XXX strategy on pricing Windows is sustainable. When you can buy a new computer for almost the same price as the OS, that's a serious problem. That then says, "How much should this computer really be?"

I really wish Microsoft would truly and sincerely evaluate the 3-day redsign/rebranding done by the design student/individual that doesn't work for them.

</comment><comment><USER13> I expect Apple to go "free" with OSX updates sooner than later. Their OS revenue is barely a blip on their quarterly balance sheet. iOS's _free_ OS releases have been a coup in terms of both usability and press attention. People who don't necessarily think of upgrading their OS can still be lucrative customers and can benefit the most from simplifying usability enhancements. And of course, it would be a great card to play against Microsoft, who have a lot to lose if free OS updates become the norm.

</comment><comment><USER14> * Apple claims it took Windows 7 26 months — three times longer — to reach 40 percent of the PC installed base, and Windows 7 is the most popular and highly-touted version of Windows in over a decade.*

This seems like a dumb comparison. Snow Leopard sold for $29; 7's base pricing was -- IIRC -- $120.

<comment><USER15> What point are you saying is dumb? They are competing operating systems. The price difference? Microsoft doesn't think it's dumb, as they are using a similar pricing strategy this time around in hope for similar results.

<comment><USER14> Because friction in upgrading is largely dictated by the price of upgrading?

Adoption of a $30 OS upgrade is obviously going to be quicker than a $120 OS upgrade, just as the iOS upgrades have even larger adoption.

<comment><USER13> Well, that's part of Gruber's point - he makes the connection between the low price and the fast adoption rate in the next paragraph..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yawn...</comment>


Female Bioware writer harassed on Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.themarysue.com/inclusion-what-jennifer-heplers-story-is-all-about/

<comment><USER3> I found this article interesting but the title of the submission disingenuous.

The linked article tries to put the gender aspect aside and focuses on the actual controversy: a games writer saying they don't actually like playing games, and the stupid response of many in the gaming community. The title of this submission converts the whole thing back into an issue of gender.

I'm not saying I think either aspect is more important, but I almost didn't click this link because I wasn't interested in seeing another gender discussion at the moment. When I decided to do so anyway I was pleasantly surprised.

<comment><AUTHOR> I disagree. As far as I am aware, a significant portion of threats were sexual in nature or focused on body image which would not happen if the person in question was male.

<comment><USER4> If the person in question was male the insults would just focus on penis size and sexuality. I agree with the previous commenter, I don't think gender is as big of an issue is people make it out to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For what it's worth, I would have loved a "skip combat" button on Mass Effect 2. The combat was decent, but it got dull after a while, very repetitive. By the end I just wanted to see the next dialog and make the next choice. That's where the real engagement of the game was for me.

And I love playing games in general.

<comment><USER6> The general ideas expressed by the person at the center of the controversy seem a bit more than that. It makes it almost more of an interactive novel than a game. She was basically saying that she doesn't think that a majority of women will enjoy any part of the game other than the dialog/story. If that is really the target market, then why bother creating the gameplay aspects?

Not saying this is a bad thing, just that creating gameplay elements that most of your target market will not enjoy seems superfluous.

<comment><USER7> > If that is really the target market, then why bother creating the gameplay > aspects?

I think this is a function of the economics that rule the game industry today. (Yes, even at BioWare.)

The problem is that what used to be a distinct genre of game, the first-person shooter, became so economically successful that now it has become the default template for _every_ type of game. Stories that in the past would have been told in the format of an adventure game, or an RPG, or a strategy game, are now forced into the format of an FPS, for the simple reason that _today AAA titles are FPSes, full stop._

This leads to all sorts of weird mutant games, such as the Mass Effect titles, where the things the designers want to do jar roughly against the format. You spend most of your time in Mass Effect games running around gathering power- ups and shooting stuff. (Pedantry alert: it's from a third-person perspective rather than first-person, but the core run-cover-shoot mechanics are the usual FPS staples.) Periodically this tedious routine will be interrupted by a brief non-shooting interlude, which happens to be where _all the interesting stuff in the game happens._ But after a few minutes of that the game pulls you right back to the running and gunning. You can practically hear the game grunting at you through clenched teeth: "This is a AAA title, dammit! You better believe you're going to be running and gunning!"

If adventure games were still an economically viable genre, you could imagine Mass Effect making a hell of an adventure game. Rip out all that running and gunning and just focus on _telling the story_ , since that's clearly where the designers' hearts are anyway. But they can't do that, because between publishers, retailers and gamers, the marketplace won't allow it. If you want to make a game with a AAA budget in the 2010s, _it has to be a shooter_ , or at least be close enough that you can argue the point.

So you get a bunch of games that try to weld the mechanics of the FPS onto stories that would fit other formats much, much better. (I'm looking at you, BioShock.)

<comment><USER8> Great insight. I've been gaming for a long time and I never thought of it like this. Do you think this is also why the RPG market is split between Japanese and Western RPGs? Western RPGs tend toward the "go kill _everything_ " motif, whereas Japanese hold your hand the whole time, story-wise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The reddit hivemind does something ferociously stupid that makes all internet users look like drooling morons -- is this news to people?

<comment><USER10> Okay, so I have been sitting on these thoughts for quite some time now. Here are they:

1\. I am no HN veteran (or tech veteran, for that matter) but I love this place and respect it much more that any other internet community I have a part of (a handful of them).

2\. I have been to reddit not more than a dozen times and probably half of these referrals would have been from here, HN.

3\. Whenever I read Reddit bashing in HN, my respect for this community decreases a little. Of course I consider HN to be a superior forum of intelligent interaction than reddit and hence I am on HN and not Reddit. I think that most of us would believe that to be true - but please, for the sake of keeping the sanctity of intelligent and useful discussion intact, we don't have to describe the superiority of intelligent discussion on HN every single time there is a post regarding Rededit! Probably all of us are aware of the differences and those who don't, won't care anyways.

4\. You generalized the entire Reddit userbase to be drooling morons - <USER2> drooling part of which I guess refers to the male chauvinism. This was done despite the fact that the author of the article is not sure if gender had substantial contribution to the type of reaction the lady had received. In the comment, the another painful point that I see is that the entire community (and not just the people who acted like 'drooling morons') is shown in a derogatory light. Me, being less aware of how Reddit works - but aware enough to see that this is a wrong generalization, just made up my mind that I had to defend this community (even though I am not a part of it) and hence see reasons to probably even see a rationale behind the behaviour of 'drooling morons', not because I support them but because I want to strongly disagree with you. And I am wrong to do that, but that is in my nature and probably there would be others who would consciously or subconsciously feel the same. The point is, ad hominem and sweeping generalizations are illogical and harmful as they entice (or gives freedom to) people to be illogical in response.

<comment><USER11> No I think you misinterpreted his statement and overreacted, even though I am an avid redditor and agree with you entirely. He said the hivemind, which in my opinion refers to the mob mentality that comes out of the entire 4chan/btard movements and has leeched into reddit. Occasionally it is used for good (hivemind hunts down cat abuser) usually it is used for, as parent commenter said, "ferociously stupid" things.

Reddit is like a bar, and I love bars but there is no denying some ferociously stupid things happen in them.

<comment><USER10> > No I think you misinterpreted his statement and overreacted

That is most probably true. As I said, I have been sitting on these thoughts for quite some time now. This just gave them an out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If people misbehave to get attention, and when they misbehave they get a ton of attention, aren't _we_ the real problem?

<comment><USER8> The entire "attention economy" of the Internet is the problem, and this is another symptom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's ironic that a lot of gamers would be raging on what Jennifer had to say. If you compare Bioware's masterpiece Baldur's Gate II with its more recent games, there is a lot more dialog and story in the former. Aside from the dialog alone, there are books and manuscripts you can read, and almost every weapon had its own special story to tell.

Having said that it's a shame that Jennifer hasn't tried more indie video games as opposed to the mainstream console games. There's actually some games on iPhone that are pretty much interactive 'Choose your own adventure' games that are the size of a novella in content.

<comment><USER14> Which games would these be? I'd love to try some good ones...

Thanks!

<comment><USER13> myquest: rise of the hunter

The Gamebooks Adventure series by Tin Man Games

There are plenty of other quick games too that aren't stereotypical like one I really like called Fairway Solitaire. There are too many to count. Smaller companies just take interesting risks that large game publishers will almost never take.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Somehow I don't see the logic. She's not a fan of gaming. So she'd like to make games less game-like to make the non-gaming crowd buy games. They're called books, tv shows and movies. And there are plenty of non-gamers consuming them.

</comment><comment><USER16> People often like to make things like this about the Internet. It's not, it's about human behavior and probability. Saying anything through a broadcast medium has a calculation involved in regards to the likelihood you're going to get attacked over it.

The world is filled with trolls. It doesn't matter what attributes you possess, thick skin will serve you well in life, and that will always be true. If you're fat or skinny, beautiful or ugly, rich or poor, you're going to get shit on, berated, harassed, and so on, at some time or another. Almost any sharp edge in any direction, about any topic, basically, results in blow back. That's not to say all scenarios are created equal.

You can hardly name something that isn't divisive these days. And now you know what nearly everybody thinks about everything courtesy of Facebook, Twitter, et al.

Mediums change, but trolls remain the same.

<comment><USER17> Fair point, but it's plainly obvious that the internet _facilitates_ this type of abusive, anti-social behavior.

Also, my take-away from the article was not an attack on the interwebs. If anything, the community was blamed - not the method of communication.

<comment><USER18> Agree. Eight years later, "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" still rings true for me: <http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19>

<comment><USER12> I don't think the Internet is a relevant part of the equation. There are plenty of trolls in the real world. Remember the "Don't taze me, bro!" guy?

(Also: Bill O'Reilly)

<comment><USER8> The Internet is part of the equation. It makes it much easier to get away with this sort of behavior, and there are virtually no consequences. You're right: trolling still happens outside of the Internet, but we have more social norms in place to deal with it in real life. If there was a way to have more consequences to what people said online, then we might see more civility.

But, we're human, and we can't have nice things.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Improved real time image animation in opencv using first order model - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/k0staa/real-time-example-of-first-order-motion-model-for-image-animation <comment><AUTHOR> A similar post has already been here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23312259](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23312259) but I decided to improve it and it may be useful to someone. I corrected code, added docker configuration and more detailed descriptions. I also simplified the preparation of input video for animations not in real time. Everything should work automatically.</comment>


Home(work) – bringing serendipity to students kicked off campus - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@contrarycapital/home-work-8ee8be005238 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, today I'm launching Home(work), a community for students that had school cancelled.

It's no coincidence that FB and Microsoft both started during Reading Period when Harvard had no class.

With support from the founders of Reddit, DoorDash and more, we're looking for builders to hack on stuff.</comment>


Ask HN: How to split the startup? - <AUTHOR>

We're three founders:
- Sales
- Hardware
- Software (me)
The hardware and software are "finished" (software is never finished) and they work even better than expected, but there will be new features and improvements in the future. As we just finished it this week, there's no sales yet and we'll be creating the company soon.
So there's a problem: from the work done so far, the hardware guy and me should have most of the cake and the sales person should have the smallest (he is also on commission per sale). However the sales guy wants a bigger piece of the cake since his work will be larger in the future.
How should we proceed to split the business? What steps will help us decide? Have in mind that we're two inexperienced (at negotiating) engineers against an experienced salesman, so we're on the odds here. I think it'd be fair for us all to have a similar share as he's on commission. He thinks it's unfair when looking ahead and when our work is mostly punctual.
I would love to hear your opinion since there's many experienced people here, probably on both sides. <comment><USER2> I always recommend that entrepreneurs form a company before they build a product. Everyone needs some equity up front for the work done to date. This equity is given in exchange for the company to take ownership of all the technology built today. The rest needs to be allocated to everyone (even you) on a vesting schedule. The end goal being that after the vest period the equity is evenly distributed. Vesting schedules have cliffs that distribute shares. Typically I recommend a 5 year vesting schedule with 12 month cliffs. If someone works for 11 months and vanishes you don't owe them any of the unvested equity in the business. If they leave after 1 year and three months they only vested the first year of equity on the schedule.

The issue at hand is that none of these roles is ever really done. It's very likely that someone will up and vanish for one reason or another while the company is being built and the remaining founders will have to bring someone else in and offer them equity to pickup where the previous person left off. Ensure you have take with and come with provisions for the protection of all shareholders.

Details: I would form the company as a corporation in Delaware with more shares allocated than distributed. Base your vesting schedule off of the shares allocated and not the possible number of shares distributed. This gives you the ability to sell shares to investors without having to pay a lawyer again in the future.

Source: Done this a few times and sold two companies in the last six years.

Me - [http://www.strapr.com](http://www.strapr.com) \- happy to provide more advice if you want some, my email is on there.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is not to be construed as legal advice, you should seek counsel for your needs.

</comment><comment><USER3> 33% for each one + 1% for me :)

More seriously, as you said, software and hardware are _never_ finished, so an equal split is better. Once you get users you will find thousands of small details that _must_ be improved. You will need a version 2. If a provider close, you will have to redesign the hardware with the new components. If Apple decide to change the AppStore guidelines you will have to adapt the soft, ...

I'd recommend the "Joel's Totally Fair Method to Divide Up The Ownership of Any Startup": now located in [http://www.brightjourney.com/q/forming-new- software-startup-...](http://www.brightjourney.com/q/forming-new-software- startup-allocate-ownership-fairly) (Note: I don't like the IUO very much.)

Previous discussions, with many interesting comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2445447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2445447) (441 points, 1381 days ago, 67 comments)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489719](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489719) (335 points, 1100 days ago, 93 comments)

Another similar discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8420792](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8420792) (4 points, 109 days, 6 comments)

And 147 more similar discussions, some of them may have good ideas: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=equity%20split&sort=byPopulari...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=equity%20split&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER4> Here is the real piece of advice:

Get a qualified opinion from someone experienced in equity splits (VC, lawyer, etc.) who has no vested interest.

Now for my drivel:

Don't split the startup at all right now. The golden rule (IMO) is to use stock options (or basically, create vested interests).

The truth is, you could end up the so-called "dick" that leaves the company pre-maturely, so be equitable in all your tradings and make everyone vested (with some clauses of job review, etc - which is why you need a qualified opinion on this) so that the startup has some structural longevity.

PS. If you think sales is hard, watch that TV show about the guy in the 80s cloning an IBM and then trying to peddle laptops. Sales is a tough (and sometimes dirty) game and you should probably appreciate your Sales guy more (especially if he is a hustler).

</comment><comment><USER5> As an engineer, and CTO - I can tell you the hardest job is sales. Product is never finished - but neither is sales. If you are both introverted engineers, the company has a high chance of going nowhere unless there is an extroverted 'business guy'.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree from what I've learned in the past. While we're not introverted, we're also inexperienced in sales so the main part will rely on the business guy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are you suggesting that hardware and software should be worth more of zero than sales?

Good luck.</comment>


Clapper Announces Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies  - <AUTHOR> http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/909-dni-clapper-announces-review-group-on-intelligence-and-communications-technologies

<comment><USER2> "The Review Group will assess whether, in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy ..."

What was supposed to be a sunlight accounting has already turned into a funding and power grab.

"... while _appropriately_ accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust."

(Emphasis mine.) These weasels can NOT say a single word without a weasel adjective. The whole point was supposed to be public trust, and it comes last and hedged.

Without having seen the appointees or its (foregone?) report, I think it's setting up to have no muscle at all.

Gag.

<comment><AUTHOR> _Without having seen the appointees or its (foregone?) report, I think it 's setting up to have no muscle at all._

Of course, why do you think they got guy, who they got to lie in front of congress the first time (no not Roger Clemens, that was more reprehensible than this of course) to chair this circus?</comment></comment>


The odd one out - inspired by IQ tests - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tanyakhovanova.com/?p=182

<comment><USER3> This may not apply to the author of the linked blog post, but it's long been a pet peeve of mine how casually people dismiss intelligence testing after seeing one or two examples of poorly designed questions. The rarely considered reality is that IQ tests vary widely in quality.

Some reasons are obvious: The test might be intentionally designed to measure something other than IQ (success in college, performance on a job, money spent on College Board® prep courses). The test might be designed to test within a particular IQ range, whether high or low. The test might be designed only to be taken by people fluent in a particular language, or who received an education from a particular school. And so on.

But the biggest and least obvious reason why bad IQ tests are everywhere is that good IQ tests are not only difficult to make, but _expensive_ to make. Good tests are not made by geniuses in armchairs thinking up riddles. Test design is an _empirical science_ , and the final judges of any question's value are the statistical relationships that show up in the answers when the test is given.

Empirical evidence sterilizes tests from the biases of their authors, and does so much more effectively than waiting for complaints from morally outraged observers. Questions that penalize takers of different cultural backgrounds are bad questions not because they're socially repugnant, but because they're noisy--you can demonstrate that people who otherwise score highly get the question wrong more often than they should. Questions like those addressed in the blog post, where some really smart people are attracted to a "wrong" answer, will have negative inter-question correlations among the brightest subjects, which is a giant blinking neon sign in any analysis.

This sanitizing effect is so strong that the tests which show the most desirable psychometric properties, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, often evoke the opposite complaint: they're so minimal and homogenous in form that it's hard to accept they're a better measure of IQ than scattershot tests of imperfect analogies and odd-one-out puzzles. If you're curious, RPM goes a little something like this: <http://iqtest.dk/main.swf>

IQ testing is a complicated science, and discrediting it because there's one or two (or fifty) dumb questions on the SATs is like giving up on journalism after reading an issue of USA Today.

<comment><USER4> Standardized tests of any kind are fundamentally flawed. You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test. You can only measure very specific things, and even then you can't expect to do a good job of it. Does a high SAT score predict success in college? People with great test scores drop out / fail out / join the peace corps by the thousands every year. Testing can a good indicator, but it's not an ideal solution.

I'm not against testing. There has to be some way to decide who gets into what college, and the SAT is a published standard. But there's no point in defending a flawed system. Let's just accept that IQ tests are a bit ridiculous and move on.

<comment><USER5> > You can't measure a person's intelligence using a test.

Do you actually believe this dogma?

This Usenet post should be read by all "IQ deniers": <http://tiny.cc/F7gxA>

_"according to IQ doubters, knowing how smart I am should tell you nothing about my IQ. It is as likely to be 50 as 150."_

The same poster once proposed a beautiful test of the depth of an IQ denier's beliefs:

You are to be operated on, and have been given a choice between two surgeons. You know nothing about them, save for the IQ of each. Will you choose the surgeon with the lower IQ? What if the difference between them is an entire standard deviation? Two standard deviations? If you truly believe that IQ tests measure _nothing_ \- that the result of any such test is essentially a random number - you should happily choose the surgeon with the lower score. If you do not believe it, we are merely quibbling over the accuracy of existing tests.

Moreover, the only way to seriously dismiss the existing IQ tests as hopelessly inaccurate is to borrow tricks from the Creationists' playbook wholesale (as Steven Jay Gould, the patron saint of IQ denial, often did) and close your eyes (and more importantly, those of your audience) to reams of high-quality data.

More references, for those actually interested: [http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intellig...](http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html)

And if you want to know the core driving force behind the IQ denialists:

[http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells- inconven...](http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient- truth_296.php)

 _"Watson was thinking like a scientist. Which is exactly why he was punished. The moral laws of our society dictate that we are not allowed to think scientifically about some issues. Especially not in public."_

<comment><USER4> If IQ is a valid measurement, then why isn't it used to make important decisions? While your surgeon example may be a bit contrived, it raises a valid point: Why haven't you ever considered the IQ of your surgeon? Does anyone even know their surgeon's IQ?

Investors don't seem to care about IQ at all. It wasn't an issue of public consideration during the last presidential election. If it could reliably predict anything, don't you think more people would ask about it? I'm sure there are places where IQ scores are considered (applying to college or Google), but these are the exception, not the rule.

There is generally a difference between people with an IQ of 50 and an IQ of 150. But you don't need a standardized test to see those differences. The problem is that there is very little difference between an IQ of 120 and an IQ of 130. If all IQ is good for is telling the difference between the very intelligent and the learning disabled, then it isn't very useful in daily life.

<comment><USER5> > If IQ is a valid measurement, then why isn't it used to make important > decisions?

It absolutely _is_ used. We are simply forced to measure it through indirect means, given that IQ tests are verboten.

> Does anyone even know their surgeon's IQ?

Medical school is (perhaps above all) a proxy IQ test.

> Investors don't seem to care about IQ at all.

They are quite interested in heavily IQ-correlated traits.

> If it could reliably predict anything, don't you think more people would ask > about it?

U.S. law de-facto prohibits the use of IQ tests for anything of economic importance: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=401&invol=424)

> But you don't need a standardized test to see those differences.

There is also no need to use a thermometer in laboratory work - we're all equipped with fingers. At least ten measurements' worth, at that.

Indirect measures are useful.

Want to determine which teenagers would make decent electrical engineers? Instead of $500 worth of IQ test (proper IQ tests are administered by private psychologists, who do not work for free) one can use $150,000 worth of college/trial-by-ordeal - a poorer measure of general intelligence, overall. Yet it continues to be the only allowed measure, because IQ tests are Officially Evil.

> there is very little difference between an IQ of 120 and an IQ of 130

On what basis do you say this?

> If all IQ is good for is telling the difference between the very intelligent > and the learning disabled

This is merely its last permitted use.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you that intelligence does exist and it needs to be measured. Measured by the completion of medical school/college, by whatever heavily IQ- correlated traits that investors look at or by a wide variety of indirect measurements or proxy tests.

Intelligence should not by measured by a standardized test. Standardized tests simply do not have a history of predicting success at anything on a micro level. If they did, people would use them. It would be trivial for large employers to pay $500 per employee to have an IQ test taken. And it isn't illegal for them to do so. From the court decision:

"Nothing in the Act precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful. What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance."

The law doesn't say that you can't use IQ tests for anything of economic importance. It says that you can't use them to discriminate. Do you think Google could show that a high score on a general intelligence test bears a demonstrable relationship to successful performance as a software engineer? And if it doesn't...then what good are the test scores?

It is possible that there is a great conspiracy against IQ tests. They could be the best measurement of intelligence, but people just don't like them. It's also very possible that the test scores aren't used in society because are relatively meaningless.

<comment><USER5> > Standardized tests simply do not have a history of predicting success at > anything on a micro level.

This is empirically false. Read about the Longitudinal Study of Youth. Children took tests, grew up, lived their lives. You cannot argue the data out of existence.

> The law doesn't say that you can't use IQ tests for anything of economic > importance. It says that you can't use them to discriminate.

There are many practices which are not illegal per se, but put you at dire financial risk liability-wise.

Read about the _actual consequences_ of the precedent set by the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. decision. Talk to a lawyer about whether it can ever be safe to include a traditional IQ test in your company's hiring process. The problems involved in demonstrating "non-discriminatory intent" and "performance applicability" are insurmountable. Unless you have extraordinarily deep pockets, the sheer expense (not to mention PR debacle) of fighting such a lawsuit will sink you before you are at any risk of overturning the precedent.

> It's also very possible that the test scores aren't used in society because > are relatively meaningless.

Once again, the falsehood of this statement can be uncovered by anyone who cares to look. We aren't talking about an organized conspiracy here - only a generation's worth of toxic political correctness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think that it's funny that a lot of people are saying that the 'odd one' is the 'normal one'. It's just a matter of common features. The large, red, bordered square is the only one that shares more than 2 features with all of the other objects.

      Features
      </comment><comment>==

          Color   Frame   Size    Shape
          -----   -----   ----    -----
      1.  red     yes     large   square
      2.  red     no      large   square
      3.  red     yes     large   circle
      4.  green   yes     large   square
      5.  red     yes     small   square

      Features in Common
      </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

        1 2 3 4 5
      1 - 3 3 3 3
      2 3 - 2 2 2
      3 3 2 - 2 2
      4 3 2 2 - <USER2>
      5 3 2 2 2 -

</comment><comment><USER7> Those sorts of questions always bothered me in IQ tests too. I was also always bothered by questions like:

"What comes next in this sequence? 1,4,9,16,25,"

Sure, the answer _might_ be 36, but then again maybe we're looking at some subtler sequence of numbers than that. Maybe it's "the number of bald men who walked past my house every hour since 5am". Maybe the next number is 345 due to the annual Patrick Stewart Lookalike Parade. Who knows?

<comment><USER8> You're probably taking it too seriously then. There's a certain subtext, the catching on to of which might be part of the test, that it's a rational and discernible pattern, and that if the answer is not 36 then the question is broken.

<comment><USER7> _You're probably taking it too seriously then._

Oh, certainly. I've never found a case where there's _genuine_ ambiguity, it's just that there's a certain part of my brain which takes delight in pointing out all the potential flaws in everything I read. It's much harder to concentrate on the test when half my brain is busy visualizing what four hundred Captain Picards would look like marching down my street.

<comment><USER9> "Oh, certainly. I've never found a case where there's genuine ambiguity ..."

I recall a test that asked to pick the one word out of four that was different or didn't fit or something.

The thing was, three out of four words described red objects. But a different three out of four words had one syllable; the other had two.

So it them became a game of, What was the test creator likely thinking?

<comment><USER10> This is why a proper test needs to be administered by a professional, I would expect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I had to read one of the comments below to find out that one of the objects is red instead of green. I'm red-green "colorblind" (about ten precent of males are).

Be careful what you are testing.

<comment><USER12> I'm red/green colour-blind too, but it relates to contrast. Red doesn't stand out as vibrantly as other colours do, that's all.

For example, in dim light, I can find it difficult to tell the difference between brown and red on a snooker table. But close up, or in bright lighting, there's no problem. For example, there's a red, a green and a brown ball in this picture:

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Snooker_t...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Snooker_table.jpg)

I can tell the difference between the red and the green more easily than the red and the brown. If the red wasn't visible on the table for comparison, and the brown wasn't near its home spot on the centre of the baulk line, I wouldn't be sure it's not red.

I doubt that 10% of males have the same level of difficulty distinguishing red from green as you indicate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> To me, this says more about the importance of rigorous test writing methodology than the silliness of IQ tests. You're trying to get a particular signal, the fact that noise exists does not eliminate the need to read that signal. However, IQ tests were first developed to determine how far behind normal certain types of children were, rather than as a measure of excellence.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't necessarily see this as a bad question. The correct answer is "it depends on which attribute is most important".

If that is an available answer, then the question can effectively separate subjective, presumptuous approaches from objective, analytical ones.

If "it depends..." is not an available choice, then it demonstrates that the test itself is subjective and presumptuous, but this doesn't necessarily implicate standardized tests in general.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if there's any pattern to the order in which people discover the special properties. I saw it as: green, no frame, small, circle.

<comment><USER16> I saw it as: no frame, green, small, circle.

It just demonstrates that this question might be a good one, if what you're testing for is the order that people find "the odd one" (not necessarily in an IQ test).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The first one is special, for two reasons: 1) as stated by others earlier: it´s the only one that isn´t special

The next reason states it more clearly imo.

2) the first symbol differs from the other four symbols in exactly 1 way; the other symbols differ from each other in 2 ways.

</comment><comment><USER18> The one on the left is the odd one out because it doesn't have a single unique feature.

</comment><comment><USER19> Or perhaps rephrased as the 'odd one in'...

<comment><USER20> Yes the odd one out is the only one that isn't odd in some way.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. But in general things may be more complicated.

On a typical test, when given a similar problem, I would have to try and figure out the thinking style of the test designers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That was a bit easy, I think most people would figure this one out, mostly because there is no decoy, and there is little chance of your trying too long in the wrong direction.</comment>


Developer / Programmer Volunteers for the GOP - <AUTHOR> http://developers.gop.com/

<comment><USER2> It'd be fun to see the tech stacks of the various political parties and see how they stack up against the stereotypes, etc.

I mean this has to be Java right? or PHP?

edit: or .NET! Duh!

<comment><USER3> > _If you write in PHP, you can develop applications that integrate with the > GOP.com platform._</comment></comment>


Stop Being So Afraid Of Offending Someone - <AUTHOR> http://pentagram.me/stop-being-so-afraid-of-offending-someone/ <comment><USER2> This could better be phrased, "if people weren't such jerks, we wouldn't have to go out of our way to avoid talking to them."

Offending someone causes them pain. Causing them to become defensive causes me pain. It makes sense that I would like to avoid both those things. If I could trust myself not to make dismissive and hurtful remarks, and I could trust other people not to let their egos get in the way, I would love to interact the way the OP advocates.

I have created a work environment where I can, but it does take effort: both to create and maintain. It requires trust from the people around you that can only be earned, not demanded. It requires trust in the people around you, so that vulnerability becomes a strength instead of a weakness. It requires an ease of shared purpose.

Without those things, not caring how one's message is received is a recipe for disaster.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think that there is a category of articles submitted to HN which can be summed up as "Anecdote Evidence mentioning but not involving Steve Jobs".

</comment><comment><USER4> There's always a way to get your point across without offending someone

<comment><USER5> Not when your point is offensive.</comment></comment>