The History of Mana: How an Austronesian Concept Became a Video Game Mechanic - <AUTHOR> http://theappendix.net/issues/2014/4/the-history-of-mana-how-an-austronesian-concept-became-a-video-game-mechanic <comment><USER3> It seems remiss of the article to not mention the word 'manna' meaning a mystical food or a spiritual nourishment. The OED has it as a Hebrew word, possibly coming from Aramaic word. Most often rendered in English with two N's, following the Greek μάννα, it is sometimes spelled with one. It appears not only in the bible but is used in English in multiple senses in every century from the 13th to the 21st.

I'm not saying there isn't a Austronesian connection, I just think an academic piece would do well to mention a credible second hypothesis. I'm not a linguist but without very clear and direct evidence my working hypothesis would be that both words probably had an influence on the fantasy version. "Manna from Heaven" would have been heard in conversation by almost every single person he names in the article. Shakespeare, Milton and Dickens all use it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Did you know: as pointed out here, "mana" is used in New Zealand (not just by Māori) and means something like "status" or "honour" (to drastically simplify a nuanced and powerful word[1]). Its also the name of a left wing party that Kim Dotcom has allied his Internet Party with for the upcoming election. The joint party is called "Internet Mana Party"[2] and is likely to achieve at least two seats on the new parliament.

1\. [http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&prove...](http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&keywords=mana&search=)

2\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana_Party#Internet_Mana_Party....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana_Party#Internet_Mana_Party.2C_2014)

</comment><comment><USER5> Well I live in New Zealand - "mana" is a Maori word that's sometimes used when referring to people - it doesn't really have a "supernatural" meaning, more one of "well earned importance and respect" \- someone with great mana has the respect of their peers/community/tribe and deserve respect by others for this reason

<comment><USER6> I believe your understanding of the contemporary definition of mana is through a Christian lens. What the Maori thought it means, and what Christian missionaries allowed contemporary culture to understand it to be, are two different things. It wouldn't have served the Christian purpose to allow for a kind of spirituality to prosper that was more willing to pander to the supernatural in life - this is supposed to be Christs' job, after all. I think the definition as you have stated it is far from what the originators of the language intended .. but who knows? Maybe we're both wrong, and its indeed a harvestable spiritual substance that can be used to make yourself more powerful in the physical world.

<comment><USER7> > What the Maori thought it means, and what Christian missionaries allowed > contemporary culture to understand it to be

You are committing a common error in portraying the Māori and their culture as being crushed and suppressed by colonialism. Hapless victims. The reality of the interplay between missionary and Māori is far more nuanced than that and you a strong disservice to Māori in your portrayal.

I'd ask what basis you have for your assertions about the 'lost' definition of mana, when the definition of mana in the Māori Dictionary specificially states:

> 2\. (noun) prestige, authority, control, power, influence, status, spiritual > power, charisma - mana is a supernatural force in a person, place or object.

It goes on to explain how mana originates from the Atua and propagates down. It also discusses the close relation between mana and tapu. [http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3424](http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/word/3424)

<comment><USER6> Where did I say the Maori were oppressed by Christian missionaries? I said no such thing. It is well known that the Maori's were able to deal with the cultural incursion of Christians better than most indigenous tribes in the times of contact

However, I do believe that Maori history and cultural perception has been colored by Christian historians. This has only recently begun to be rectified by John Moorfield, and other authors who have contributed to the Maori dictionary, which is a relatively recent advance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What, no "Magic Carpet"? Pfftt ..

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Carpet_(video_game)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Carpet_\(video_game\))

I was very amused when this game was released and there was 'mana everywhere', but as an Australian I guess I kind of already knew what mana was by then .. what fascinates me about this article is that it seems that we're finally looking beyond the prejudice and realizing - contemporaneously - that we lost a lot of value in life because our forefathers were racist, intolerant assholes.

</comment><comment><USER8> What, no mention of Populous ? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populous)

<comment><USER9> What, no mention of every random game that had the concept of mana?

<comment><USER10> Populous was a blockbuster game _and_ it predates both Warcraft and Diablo by half a decade (released 1989), so it is indeed a striking omission. It's also the first game I can remember that used the concept by that name.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but it did little to bring the word to modern-day gamers compared to the impact that WoW and other RPGs has had.

<comment><USER8> It did, indirectly as a whole generation of developers has been exposed to it... And they made the games you know today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hah, I guessed "Niven's fantasy books" would be an important part of this story.

The back of my head is saying "but what about JRPGs using the term since forever" when he only discusses M:TG and Warcraft but I could be wrong.

<comment><USER13> > but what about JRPGs using the term since forever

Before MTG though? I just remember magic depending on "MP" was "magic points/power" just like "HP" was "hit points" (i.e. 'life'). What's the earliest JRPG to call it 'mana?'

<comment><USER14> Squaresoft's _Secret of Mana_ came out the same year at M:TG, 1993.

<comment><USER15> Here's the Wikipedia article on it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_of_Mana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_of_Mana). I never played the game myself, but the article mentions that mana was used as "spell points", and that

> The story takes place in a fictional world where mana represents an > ethereal, but finite, energy source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> playing the devil's advocate here, the name "mana" for the concept in question came much later than its incorporation into video games (as "MP"), which argues against the concept having been borrowed from the culture that had the word "mana". and at least after the fact, MP are an obvious solution for the problem of rate limiting spells - so it's plausible to argue that the inherent concept probably would have shown up in games independently of any particular tribal society using it in their formulation of magic or not.

</comment><comment><USER17> There's also a "mana" word in Eastern European languages ( [http://dexonline.ro/definitie/mana](http://dexonline.ro/definitie/mana) \- it's an archaic-regional word, not new or imported from French/English!), VERY polysemantic, with some distantly similar meanings, and with some negative connotations, usually listed everywhere as having either a Greek or a Slavic root (мана), but also fond in older Bible translations... so a Hebrew -> Slavic -> (...) route might be possible. _And this is way older than Mircea Eliade 's rediscovery and popularization of the Austronesian word._

99% coincidence, but who knows, we might even have a common origin of Indo- European and Austronesian languages showing up it's head here...

Reminds me of the 2000+ years old Sanskrit word "avatar" that also got a whole new meaning in the digital world :)

<comment><USER18> > 99% coincidence, but who knows, we might even have a common origin of indo- > european and Austronesian languages showing up it's head here...

This isn't possible given the timescales involved. Constant language change means there's no way to distinguish hypothetically identical-by-descent words that diverged so long ago from unsurprising identical-by-coincidence words. What cannot be detected in theory cannot usefully be said to exist at all.

In sum, an even more ancient common origin of ancient language families cannot be described as "showing itself" anywhere, since there's nothing left to be seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Did they write a whole article on the subject without mentioning Larry Niven's role?

Per Wikipedia, "Not Long Before the End" was first published in 1969. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Goes_Away](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Goes_Away)

That said, I must confess that there was a difference between his concept and the modern computer-RPG one -- his mana was present in the environment in general, rather than being specific to any one spellcaster.

(I am permanently ashamed that I didn't see the close connection to Nevinyrral's Disk until it was pointed out, but the I generally don't quickly see backward spellings. E.g., it took me about a week to understand the name of the "Alucard" vampire build in Elder Scrolls Online.)

<comment><USER20> Did you try searching the article for the phrase "Larry Niven"? He is mentioned about halfway down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What about the bible? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna)

</comment><comment><USER22> Another question: Why is mana almost always blue?

<comment><USER23> I would say that's in order to contrast with the typical HP bar, which goes from green to red as you lose health.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Pacific Island cultures are the origin of the concept of mana, and yet more people in the world have learned about the concept from WoW or other fantasy games. At its height, there were more players of World of Warcraft than Pacific Islanders._

Goddamn we need more online anthropology!

<comment><USER25> We need more of both! I know more than one anthropologist in training whose "field work" involves lurking on online message boards and fora - <USER2> that online anthropology will become an increasingly hot topic in the next couple years.

<comment><USER26> A subset is already covered by the [http://knowyourmeme.com](http://knowyourmeme.com) site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Mana == Prana (yoga) == Chi (I dunno, karate or something) (== attention, maybe). People have been talking about this stuff forever.

Generalized cosmic power.

People scoff, but I think that modern people are just different. A shift in sensitivities happened. We're all about ideas now.

Consider the classic case of the geek who can't get laid. It's like he's blind to something.

<comment><USER28> I can quibble with that -- mana would be more like refined jing, or shen in the "three treasures" schema (jing-chi-shen).

The sensitivity has always been here, though it has been suppressed (among some other weirder phenomena) Some interesting readings:

* [http://earthweareone.com/what-a-shaman-sees-in-a-mental-hosp...](http://earthweareone.com/what-a-shaman-sees-in-a-mental-hospital/)

* Ken Wilber's arguments about the "dignity" and "diasaster" of modernity (_The Marriage of Sense and Soul_)

It's less about modern people and more about modernity itself. Modernity currently treats anything woo woo (pre-modern) as childish, wishful thinking (think, "The Secret"), and as a result, there has been pathological disassociation with wisdom traditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Just so you know, it's pronounced "monna". [http://penny- arcade.com/comic/2000/06/16](http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2000/06/16)

<comment><USER30> Related: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSb1fg6sQuU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSb1fg6sQuU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Long article is long. Funny, I was a huge fan of Niven when I was a kid but only read his SF books, never his fantasy.</comment>


MySQL vs PostgreSQL - <AUTHOR> http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL#bodyContent <comment><USER2> Slightly OT, but I'm going to reiterate a comment from the older submission, this is one of the best written comparisons of two similar technologies I've ever read. Generally you either get one-sided pieces or supposed "fair fight" pieces which slant the view towards whatever the author has chosen as the better solution for them. Those can be helpful, but something divorced from justifying a decision like this is amazing. So thanks to the writer(s)!

<comment><USER3> I only skimmed the page, but i didn't find any references or stats to back up any claims in the text?

<comment><USER4> Really?

Just about every single claim provides a reference. For example, the sentence _MySQL 5.1 natively supports 9 storage engines_ links directly to the MySQL documentation where they are listed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're evaluating databases based on their replication capabilities, don't stop with what MySQL has built-in. Take a look at [http://www.percona.com/live/mysql- conference-2012/sessions/h...](http://www.percona.com/live/mysql- conference-2012/sessions/how-evaluate-which-mysql-high-availability-solution- best-suits-you) The advice boils down to "You probably want to ignore the built-in replication and use Galera".

You can get Galera integrated with an otherwise vanilla MySQL from <http://codership.com/products/mysql_galera> or integrated with Percona's XtraDB fron <http://www.percona.com/software/percona-xtradb-cluster/>

<comment><USER6> Why bother? PostgreSQL is better.

<comment><USER7> But yet every major website chooses MySQL over PostgreSQL.

Why is that ?

<comment><USER8> Because up until recently PostgreSQL replication didn't really exist, and you had to choose between 10 different trigger-be-using unscalable bag-on-the-side technologies to fill that void.

<comment><USER9> Still I know of at least one quite large website (one of the largest in Sweden) that use Slony despite the performance hit from trigger based replication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Call me when MySQL has a working insert statement.

One that doesn't randomly truncate your data, or allow insertion of nulls into not null columns.

<comment><USER11> You mean like:

      SET GLOBAL sql_mode='TRADITIONAL';

    ?

<comment><USER12> That's like selling aftermarket airbags for your car.

<comment><USER11> It's no more aftermarket than InnoDB support is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Depending upon its definition, you can add a column to a PostgreSQL table without locking it.

Maybe they changed it in later versions of MySQL, but adding a column to a table become so lengthy for some of our projects that we switched for that reason alone.

<comment><USER14> Its one of the big reasons I am looking at switching. I have been dumping the table and reloading it in using a new name and the renaming the tables to get around this issue but its hardly ideal.

<comment><USER15> pt-online-schema-change should resolve that issue for you: [http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/2.1/pt-online- sch...](http://www.percona.com/doc/percona-toolkit/2.1/pt-online-schema- change.html)

<comment><USER14> Seems the risks are such my approch works just as well,

"pt-online-schema-change modifies data and structures. You should be careful with it, and test it before using it in production. You should also ensure that you have recoverable backups before using this tool."

With that being the case what im doing is fine I guess.

<comment><USER15> Because there is a disclaimer, you are disregarding a thoroughly tested product that solves your exact problem? One which is released by one of the premier MySQL consultancies with the author of "the" MySQL book as the designer?

<comment><USER14> I don't pay for support. So yes.

<comment><USER15> You could make the same exact disclaimer about SQL statement and it would be true:

"INSERT modifies data and structures. You should be careful with it, and test it before using it in production. You should also ensure that you have recoverable backups before using this tool."

"ALTER modifies data and structures. You should be careful with it, and test it before using it in production. You should also ensure that you have recoverable backups before using this tool."

It's just good advice to test stuff before you use it in production. Discarding an awesome product simply because the authors (responsibly) mention that you should probably test it out seems overly paranoid and would severely limit your choices. Percona Toolkit is the most well known and reliable set of tools out there in the MySQL ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A huge advantage of PostgreSQL over MySQL is PostGIS (the geospatial extension of PostGIS). I can't believe they don't even mention this.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think it's a bad idea to evaluate by checklists of features you think you need. It's kind of like choosing where to live based on a checklist.

I started with MySQL, then used MySQL and PostgreSQL for a while. Then, when I started to do more "real" projects, I just got so frustrated with MySQL in so many ways at once. It wasn't that MySQL _couldn't_ do it, it's that it was frustrating at every turn.

In my case, what caused me to drop MySQL almost entirely (around 2003 or 2004) was doing a few simple reports involving dates. Then I started using postgres and it was refreshingly consistent and flexible without so many caveats. And now I develop for postgresql, and the code is similarly consistent and flexible (and just all-around nice).

I have had a long string of positive experiences with postgres. It's hard to wrap them up into a feature checklist.

If something held you back from using postgres in the past, it's a good idea to watch the release notes to see if something new might solve that problem (or better yet, discuss on the lists so maybe it will be solved faster). But I tend to think that looking at long lists of features is a distraction.

</comment><comment><USER18> I would say this site is too nice to mysql. For stored procedures, mysql had those later whereas postgresql got those right early on. Mysql stored procedures suck donkey balls compared to postgres. Postgres in general just feels better designed, from the beginning.

re: replication, slony is horrible yet they focus on that. The slony author says you can daisy chain things, but that's a setup nightmare. Also, slony's n^2 communication gives you consistency guarantees, something I'm pretty sure mysql can't do, but most people don't need that. I much prefer bucardo. It's simple, easier to configure, fewer guarantees, but replicates much faster. I just wouldn't run a bank on that. However, how many people design bank software.

<comment><USER19> I read that entire site as:

PostgresSQL has feature X, Y, Z

MySQL had X, recently introduced Y, and does not always have Z.

It's always MySQL catching up to postgres. And lots of it's db engines are not ACID. Its not the DB I thought it was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Looks like the fragment ID was added to escape duplication detection.

Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=328257>

<comment><USER21> They could add a check for identically rendered topic titles (including site name in parentheses) to avoid some of these.

<comment><USER22> That won't work for pure javascript sites like Twitter.

<comment><USER21> I am referring to the title that is generated and displayed on HN for the link (I don't know if it's done through scraping). Twitter has proper title tags on status pages by the way (e.g. <https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/235818483588407296>)

<comment><USER23> That title is supplied by the submitting user according to some informal recommendations. Every so often, there will be an argument over whether the submitted title is appropriate for the content. HN doesn't scrape anything for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just pipe your data /dev/null to get that web-scale

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs>

</comment><comment><USER15> Oh bloody hell, yet another PostgreSQL vs MySQL battle ensues.

</comment><comment><USER25> Xbox vs Playstation...

</comment><comment><USER26> Reading this makes me glad I don't ever have to interact with MySQL. PostgreSQL is bad enough.

<comment><USER27> What is "bad enough" about Postgres?

<comment><USER26> It's SQL. Isn't that sufficient?

<comment><USER28> Mangling the well-known quotation: SQL is the worst syntax, except all the others that have been tried.

What are you comparing it to?

<comment><USER29> Kx system's kdb+/q query language.

It looks almost like SQL; the main philosophical differences:

a) it embraces order (that is, every query result has an implicit "running index" field (called i, starting at 0).

This single handedly solves a lot of inconsistencies in practical SQL having to do with order, which is abhorred by the relational data model, thus not a first class concept, but is often required in practice, and thus inconsistently bolted on.

b) columns can nest, and do not have to have the same type - which means that aggregations like count, sum, max, min and distinct are not special in any way.

c) there's a simple underlying programming language, so if you have an intermediate select result that you need twice, you just give it a name by prepending a "name: " to the select.

        temp: select from grades where age>10;

        b1: select from temp where eyecolor=`blue;
        b2: select from temp where eyecolor=`brown;

(compare to the mess that is correlated sub-queries, or alternatively, horrible "create temporary table x as ..."

<comment><USER30> SQL is fundamentally about sets, thinking of it in any other way provokes unhappiness. Your differences are set-subverting add-ons which could be accomplished by any higher level front end to SQL.

SQL is comparable to assembly language. Most people don't need it and wouldn't know how to use it properly anyway. These are the sort of people who use PHP and MySQL.

<comment><USER29> > SQL is fundamentally about sets,

Nope. "Relational Algebra" / "Relational Calculus" / "The Relational Model" is about sets.

SQL is about bags (orderless like sets, but each item might be repeated multiple times). It's also about order ("ORDER BY" clause) in a horrible inconsistent way.

> SQL is comparable to assembly language. Most people don't need it and > wouldn't know how to use it properly anyway

No, SQL is not comparable to assembly in any meaningful way (you could replace "assembly language" with "danish" in your statement and would be equally true)

While assembly language is more verbose, it is more fundamental than everything else in the sense that eventually everything must be expressed in assembly language (machine code, actually, which is equivalent to a proper subset of assembly language) to be executed. Thus, going down to assembly language might be more up-front work, but it is guaranteed that you can match or improve on run-time results from any other language.

SQL is an inconsistent abstraction that makes some things simple, some things hard, and some things essentially impossible -- and many of the things it does do, it does in a way that's inherently inefficient. (And don't tell me about the possible smart query optimizer - it doesn't really exist any more than Intel's Itanium optimizer that makes code properly utilize the VLIW; or a Unicorn).

edit: add the note about machine code.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are some sources to learn about microservices architecture? - <AUTHOR> I am a noob, learning things on my own. So lately I have been trying to understand how one should go about designing the architecture a non-trivial and fairly large web app and I came across the word micro-services. I tried googling, but that just made me more confused on what the term is. So some examples and explanation would be really helpful. <comment><USER2> Mobile so just blurting this out...

typically you build apps as single 'monolithic' apps where all your code is in one place.

or

You split your code by criteria... say 'function'. So maybe seperating UI (front-end) from server/API (backend).

Reason is if you wanted to change part of your app its easier if there are clear boundaries between each part rather than mangled solo entities as with monolithic.

Microservices is an extreme version or seperation of concerns/function whereby you create 'black boxes' that handle one thing (auth, orders, stats, images) - each of those 'services' provides a mechanism for intra-communication... typically via an API (REST). sounds great in theory and makes large apps easier to distribute across tech stacks, geo and developer teams without worrying about other services... but... ensuring all services are secure, share information, self heal (recreate themselves when crashes occur), auto find each other across the interweb (discover) etc etc is a massive P.I.T.A.

Search 'Netflix microservices' on YouTube... reality is never as nice and clean as theory.

Also Orielly and other have books on M.S...

I would say build the monolith first (or simply seperate client from server/API), then split if need... rinse and repeat. Its gonna be real hard going if you're building a multi tenant app for most things and trying to start with M.S

When you need to scale... iterate. if M.S makes sense, split out a function and carry on.

Also check out Docker... sorta encourages M.S approach. Quickly create/destroy and deploy new 'service containers' etc...

Github has some examples too

[https://github.com/cer/microservices- examples](https://github.com/cer/microservices-examples) etc etc

Good luck

<comment><AUTHOR> That was a clear explanation. Thanks. :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would recommend becoming familiar with the 12 factor app methodology ([https://12factor.net](https://12factor.net)) and reading the following books:

[https://www.amazon.com/Building-Microservices-Designing- Fine...](https://www.amazon.com/Building-Microservices-Designing-Fine-Grained- Systems/dp/1491950358)

[https://www.amazon.com/Production-Ready-Microservices- Standa...](https://www.amazon.com/Production-Ready-Microservices-Standardized- Engineering-Organization/dp/1491965975)

[https://www.amazon.com/Microservice-Architecture-Aligning- Pr...](https://www.amazon.com/Microservice-Architecture-Aligning-Principles- Practices/dp/1491956259)

</comment><comment><USER4> Start here [https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html](https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html)

Then look here for patterns [http://microservices.io/patterns/microservices.html](http://microservices.io/patterns/microservices.html)

This guide is great [https://www.nginx.com/blog/introduction-to- microservices/](https://www.nginx.com/blog/introduction-to-microservices/)

Finally plugging my own tooling [https://micro.mu/](https://micro.mu/)

Join [http://slack.micro.mu](http://slack.micro.mu) if you want to discuss microservices

<comment><AUTHOR> micro.mu really looks interesting.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, its built based on personal experience and seems to resonate with companies who are undergoing scaling pains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would recommend this book, [http://toptalkedbooks.com/books/xyiEMg/RESTful- Web-Services-...](http://toptalkedbooks.com/books/xyiEMg/RESTful-Web-Services- Cookbook-Solutions-for-Improving-Scalability-and-Simplicity)

</comment><comment><USER6> I would suggest starting with the short introductory articles written by Chris Richardson: [http://microservices.io/articles/index.html](http://microservices.io/articles/index.html)

A lot of useful articles can be found inside archives section of the Microservices Weekly newsletter: [http://microservicesweekly.com/archives](http://microservicesweekly.com/archives)

</comment><comment><USER7> Check out [https://www.datawire.io/guide](https://www.datawire.io/guide) it breaks down how to think about microservices architectures in terms of development, infrastructure, deployment, and traffic.</comment>


So Long, Prog21 - <AUTHOR> http://prog21.dadgum.com/229.html <comment><USER2> A sad day. Through the years this blog has given me a different insight on the craft of programming than the many that just tout the latest fad. His ideas often challenged my concept of structure and prose but made me a better coder in the end. Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER3> I always enjoyed these articles.

For some reason never noticed the "prog21" part of the URL.</comment>


Kalashnikov rifle changed the world. Now there's a Kalashnikov kamikaze drone - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/02/23/kalashnikov-assault-rifle-changed-world-now-theres-kalashnikov-kamikaze-drone/ <comment><USER2> With the amount that drones have been increasingly used to carry explosive, I would not be surprised to see these used in a major conflict. Hopefully the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands, but the risk will remain. Scary to imagine a weapon like this being deployed by those looking to inflict pain on civilians.</comment>


The media are unwittingly selling us an AI fantasy - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/13/dont-believe-the-hype-media-are-selling-us-an-ai-fantasy <comment><USER3> I agree with the sentiment that the discussion about AI and Machine Learning should not be entirely driven by industry.

At the same time, this article seems to be a bit down on AI itself, and part of their message is that AI _doesn 't_ provide "relevant and competent" solutions to problems. It also sounds like they are writing off real work (both in industry and academia) focusing on real ethical concerns with AI and what can be done to address them (e.g., the FAT* conference, a growing number of sessions on fairness, privacy, and other related topics at NeurIPS and ICML, etc).

I think the most important issue is educating the general public about AI and giving them familiarity with what types of things are automatable, what things can be learned from their data, where and how AI is being used in the real world currently, etc. A big part of this is to have the mainstream media be a bit more self-guided.

A final thought: one of the suggestions from the Reuter's article is that we should hear more from scientists and activists in the media. This seems a bit troubling to me, since in ML and AI research there are very strong ties between academia and industry (and often people move fairly freely between the two). I'm not sure we would hear a significantly different narrative if we talked to researchers in academia...

<comment><USER4> there is this humor show (the fix, on Netflix) where they were supposed to "fix" AI.

I think it's quite telling that the entire show instead ended up talking about robotics. I don't think any of the participants reflects at all on how AI is used today in the systems they interact with.

So that's probably the first step in educating the public. Find a basic mental framework for thinking about AI that doesn't involve robots or skynet.

<comment><USER3> That's a really interesting point - it does seem like most people immediately jump to skynet or our robot overlords whenever the topic of AI comes up. I don't have any really solid suggestions for what a good mental framework for thinking about AI would be, but I think giving an alternative to these unrealistic versions would be super helpful.

<comment><USER5> I always explain it using recommendation engines. You buy a vacuum and you get suggestions for 10 vacuums you might want to get next. Not so good. You buy a film with Tom Cruise, and you see 10 other Tom Cruise moves suggested, thats not so bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I suggest this reading to anybody interested in this topic: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3078224)

It tracks the history of this narrative and explains who profits from it.

This phenomenon has a clear political and ideological root and both journalists, politicians and engineers should fight against it together.

If you want to explore more related topics there's plenty of related content in a reading list I've been developing in the last few months: [https://github.com/chobeat/awesome-critical-tech-reading- lis...](https://github.com/chobeat/awesome-critical-tech-reading-list)

<comment><USER6> From the abstract:

> In practice, the confusion around AI's capacities serves as a pretext for > imposing more metrics upon human endeavors and advancing traditional > neoliberal policies. The revived AI, like its predecessors, seeks > intelligence with a "view from nowhere" (disregarding race, gender, and > class) — which can also be used to mask institutional power in visions of > AI-based governance.

Later:

> The manufactured AI revolution has created the false impression that current > systems have surpassed human abilities to the point where many areas of > life, from scientific inquiry to the court system, might be best run by > machines. However, these claims are predicated on a narrow and radically > empiricist view of human intelligence. It's a view that lends itself to > solving profitable data analysis tasks but leaves no place for the politics > of race, gender, or class. Meanwhile, the confusion over AI's capabilities > serves to dilute critiques of institutional power. If AI runs society, then > grievances with society's institutions can get reframed as questions of > "algorithmic accountability." This move paves the way for AI experts and > entrepreneurs to present themselves as the architects of society.

This is implausible, to say the least. Isn't this basically a conspiracy theory? Not to mention, huge tech companies were already huge before the AI hype. I'm 4 pages in and I still don't know what's the author's point, other than promoting conspiracy theories and spreading FUD about AI.

<comment><AUTHOR> They are not conspirancy theories because they don't assume a concerted effort from these entities but just a common interest and their action converge to reinforce the same phenomenon.

The author is a system biologist writing about sociology, so the paper should be read with the vocabulary of sociology, not of colloquial language.

<comment><USER6> > They are not conspirancy theories

Agreed, I've read a bit more:

> The pragmatic interest on the part of industry is natural, since the > behaviorist approach that has appealed to many AI researchers aligns with > the profit motives of surveillance capitalism.

Still, the language is loaded, the examples of claims (of AI proponents) are cherry-picked, the limitations of technology are misrepresented and the results are dismissed because they don't take "historical context" or "emotions visible clearly on the faces" into account.

It doesn't read like a scientific paper at all - or is this how papers in non- STEM look like in general?

<comment><AUTHOR> The language is loaded because it's part of an ongoing discourse that by

>is this how papers in non-STEM look like in general?

you're not familiar with. And yes, this is quite a good paper for sociology standards. It comes from a STEM-guy so I think I like his style of writing.

> the examples of claims (of AI proponents) are cherry-picked,

This is not hard science where you have to find hard rules and a counter- example breaks your argument. He's commenting on a trend that we can all relate to. Is it a vocal minority or it's actually the vast majority of the industry/media? For that you can go back to data but that's not the goal of the paper and it doesn't invalidate his thesis anyway, as long as the narrative dominates the public discourse.

<comment><USER6> > you're not familiar with.

Agreed - unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the field at all :(

> it doesn't invalidate his thesis anyway

But, but, his thesis is that we're inevitably heading in the direction of a dystopia with "robo judges" and scientific pursuit being judged based on "metrics"... And that "surveillance capitalism" companies and the proponents of AI are power-hungry demons who plan to use AI to force some unspecified "psychology model" on the society as a whole!

Well, maybe that's how it is - I suspect it's not like that, but I can't know for sure. My objection is that, whatever the plans of evil corporations and traitors-to-humanity scientists, our current technology is nowhere near enabling any of the "changes to society" the author fears. The "superhuman intelligence" is not going to surface for a long time, the "bots" which "write quality editorials and replace journalists" will probably be realized something like 5 years before the "superhuman intelligence" mentioned, so also in the (very) far future. As for funding science, it's not AI (nor AI proponents) who come up with "metrics", but people, and they did so for the past 2 centuries at the very least. Yes, it's dangerous, but it has nothing to do with AI. The paper makes it sound like the hype around the AI is an imminent danger to the society-as-we-know-it, but isn't it infinitely more probable that this hype will follow thousands of others and simply die out?

I guess what I want to say is that the difference in complexity between - <USER2> impressive in their own right - current ML-based solution and any kind of understanding is so vast that worrying about what will happen when the AI will be capable of the latter in no way justifies the sensationalist tone of the article.

Well, I could be misinterpreting the author due to my unfamiliarity, so maybe it's not particularly sensationalist for the field and I just misinterpreted it.

<comment><AUTHOR> > But, but, his thesis is that we're inevitably heading in the direction of a > dystopia with "robo judges" and scientific pursuit being judged based on > "metrics"... And that "surveillance capitalism" companies and the proponents > of AI are power-hungry demons who plan to use AI to force some unspecified > "psychology model" on the society as a whole!

I would argue that this is the present, not the future.

> Well, maybe that's how it is - I suspect it's not like that, but I can't > know for sure. My objection is that, whatever the plans of evil corporations > and traitors-to-humanity scientists, our current technology is nowhere near > enabling any of the "changes to society" the author fears.

You don't need advanced technology for that. The existing technology is more than enough and we're seeing the devastating effects on the existing society. I don't think that for the thesis of the author, the actual progress of technology is relevant: if it looks intelligent, they will apply the narrative and profit from it.

The author is talking about how the promise of a yet to come AGI helps to build a narrative today that is used to exploit people. This is one thing. The dystopia is a critique to the narrative itself, that would lead to even further deterioration of the social fabric if it keeps being pursued. This is completely independent by the satisfaction of the promise of AGI or similar. As long as the narrative is believable, it will be used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The problem is that researchers and engineers rarely engage in the public debate except if they need to drive corporative interests.

The debate sees corporations and the tech elite on one side and artists, activists and philosophers on the other, with journalists split between the two. Engineers are used by either side but they don't have their own voice and mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and interest to join a non-technical debate as a cohesive force.

The result is that the whole debate is conducted mostly by people that has no idea how this stuff really works and cannot separate marketing mumbo jumbo from the actual practice of building "AI" systems.

It's therefore very refreshing to see the work of artists like Hito Steyerl or ssbkyh that actually learn how to work with Deep Learning or other techniques to actually create critique of the existing narrative.

<comment><USER7> > mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and > interest to join a non-technical debate

This is somewhere between slander and trying to explain away other social groups bullying engineers.

The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without approval or buy-in from other parties.

So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves.

<comment><AUTHOR> > The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of > the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for > the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can > unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without > approval or buy-in from other parties.

Truth is never simple. Engineers have been "bullied" out of the debate (this is not really how I see it but ok) because they often hold beliefs that renders the debate impossible. The narrative of "engineer is a pure discipline" or that "tools have no political color" are still strong despite countless counter-evidence. In the case of software-engineers that are left alone in the hands of managers and their interests, the social devastation that follows is very evident just by looking at the news.

> So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, > activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage > with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among > themselves.

This is a real and pressing concern for many of them but it's not easy. I'm an engineer and I'm trying to do just that, or at least bring the existing discourse to the engineers if I can't bring the engineers to the discourse. But believe me, the cultural and personal resistance is extremely strong, first of all because it forces them to re-evaluate the belief system and take responsability for what they are doing and what they did in the past. Staying in an ethical comfort zone where you can ignore the consequences of your action is much easier.

<comment><USER8> Well, but tools do have no political color. That's why The Open Source Definition has "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", period.

<comment><USER9> I can't be the only person who has seen FOSS people complaining bitterly that their work has been used in projects they object to.

"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour" \- like FOSS itself - is an absolutely huge win for the corporates.

Related: I used to know someone who designed missile guidance systems. His work was a purely theoretical problem solving exercise for him until he saw a missile he had worked on being used in news footage of a war.

That was when he realised that even though he wasn't discriminating against some fields of endeavour, the technology he was building most certainly did.

<comment><USER10> I have sympathy for anyone who regrets his mistakes, as I certainly regret my own. However, it can't really have been a total surprise that a _missile guidance system_ was used in a war?

<comment><USER11> Depending on the circumstances it could absolutely be.

For example, many defense research labs have "red team" projects where new capabilities are developed strictly to understand adversary capabilities, feasibility / cost to extend a legacy system with modern tech, and many similar things. Kind of like Myth Busters but applied to questions about an adversary's capabilities.

Some of these research labs are even joined with academic institutions that carry with them a strict ethics mandate that any and all such work can only be theoretical or defensive in nature, to assess and defend against threats, anticipate new threats or debunk claimed capabilities from existing adversaries, but absolutely _never_ to carry out an offensive agenda, enhance existing attack capability or anything similar.

In a situation like that, you absolutely could be greatly surprised & upset to learn your defensive "myth busters" research is turned around and repurposed by another team or something to enhance attack capabilities.

It could be similar with computer security as well. Imagine putting your best effort into developing an attack, exploit or malware because you think it's purely to determine if something could be done by an adversary, or to highlight a weakness purely for defensive purposes... only to find that it's used to directly attack someone else after the research leaves your hands.

<comment><USER10> Again, this isn't meant as harsh criticism, since I know how easy it is to fool oneself. However, we're talking about another level of cognitive dissonance entirely with defense research lab staff discovering only too late the purpose of "defense research". Maybe there was a sign on the door that said "for peaceful purposes only", but the main thing to remember about the war industry is that they lie.

<comment><USER11> I think you are imagining that it's some small, throw-away comment, but it's not necessarily.

MIT's Lincoln Laboratory for example was originally opposed by the university president at the time with huge community backlash against the university becoming connected to a military research lab.

Part of the original charter of the lab was that its scope of operation was very, very strictly restricted to US air defense, and very strictly _not_ the development of offensive capabilities. There was even a huge report commissioned by the university to detail exactly the defense needs and set boundaries around them in terms of what projects could possibly be approved for funding at the lab. The "no attack" component of this was a giant, first- order constraint of the whole multi-million dollar endeavor to even create the facility at all.

On the other hand, I do agree many other cases could be like what you suggested. Just saying not all.. and some of them would be directly, loudly predicated on "defense only" mandates where it would be a huge surprise if the research was subverted later.

<comment><USER10> The thread hypothesis is that regardless of the marketing, work in weapons- oriented research will create weapons. Does Lincoln undertake such research? Could it do so? You introduced LL into the conversation, presumably because you wouldn't be shocked to see weapons come from there too. I don't know much about LL, but I wouldn't be shocked either. I do believe you when you tell me that some people working there _would_ be shocked.

<comment><USER11> Within the first 5-15 years of LL's existence though, I would have been dramatically shocked if it engaged in projects that created offensive capabilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Replace AI with Science and the articles points are all pretty much the same. The media reports on cancer cures, new batteries and energy tech, etc all the time. It's the same thing. Grand visions, money to be made, stories to sell.

</comment><comment><USER13> Everyone reading here knows there is no 'AI' but are happy to peddle or sit back and watch as pattern matching used to identify nudity is wildly hyped up as 'AI'. This is the same kind of fraud as Theranos was guilty of.

There is nothing in the current programming paradigm to create an 'AI' as the 'world understands the term' but individuals and groups blinded by profit and greed are 'growth hacking' redefining and blurring the meaning of words to suit their commercial agendas.

The technical community at large would come out against this kind of widespread misinformation and abuse but they don't as everyone is looking for a gig, job, contract or more ominously some 'illusory power'. But that doesn't make it any less abusive of discourse.

How can we make an AI when we don't even understand human intelligence properly. What in current programming language allows you to create anything that can 'think' and make decisions. How is processing data and matching patterns 'thinking' or AI is any way or form? A culture of hubris is seeing programmers constantly engaged in hype and overestimating their tools while underestimating basic human intelligence required for even mundane tasks like driving.

But once you redefine and twist words they lose all meaning for communication and in the end you lose all credibility, but this seems to be a gold rush and as long as some have made money on the way who cares. If AI happens it will be from decades of hard research in the scientific community like how all breakthroughs happen, not in the trade.

</comment><comment><USER14> >> Why do people believe so much nonsense about AI?

That is the central question. Why is it that people are prepared to believe in all the wild fantasies that the marketing arms of the tech industry come up with? Shouldn't the expectation be that the majority would instead be more cautious and avoid believing all the overblown promises, especially when they repeatedly fail to be fulfilled?

<comment><USER15> Today we believe in SCIENCE (whatever that means). Hence, we believe what any of its priests says unless countered by other (more famous) priest.

<comment><USER16> I wish I could say that people believed in science. Priests (literal ones, not metaphorical ones like your strawmen) seem to have more influence over public policy in much of the world though, including America, and more often than not to the detriment of all.

<comment><USER17> The benefit about being more honest about their role in society: they get to exploit it more thoroughly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Rule of thumb: if someone is talking about "AI" and not "Machine Learning", "Pattern Matching and Recognition", "Search heuristics" or "Statistics", it is most likely going to be bullshit.

<comment><USER8> On the other hand, OpenAI is not bullshit, so...

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm just going to leave this picture of the elephant in the living-room:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus%27s_views_on_ar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Dreyfus%27s_views_on_artificial_intelligence)

<comment><USER20> Eh, this week Scott Adams' Dilbert has been going that way:

[https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-01-10](https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-01-10)

[https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-01-12](https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-01-12)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is this a real issue though? The article skips past what the problem is and focuses on why it exists by accusing the tech industry of writing articles about tech.

Besides the philosophical argument of whether pattern matching counts as AI is there really a problem here? I have not heard of anyone effected by AI becoming a buzzword. Products are still evaluated on what they can actually do, so who cares?

Siri and Google can now take voice commands. I don't know of anyone who actually expected an intellectual conversation. They were never marketed as such.

<comment><USER22> Actually it is somewhat dangerous in that once politicians buy in, they start pursuing policies built around the assumption that this sort of thing is real. Billions will be wasted on military projects pursuing AI-enabled features that are nowhere close to being ready; police are blowing money on facial recognition systems based on misleading stats; and we already see local and national governments salivating over self-driving cars as a solution to public transportation woes. Tax money is and will continue to be given away to corporations who are selling the snake oil of self driving cars rather than that money being invested in real solutions for public transit, or even basic maintenance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> >...it goes like this...on balance AI will be good for humanity. Oh – and by the way – its progress is unstoppable ... The truly extraordinary thing, therefore, is how many apparently sane people seem to take the narrative as a credible version of humanity's future.

I don't see what's extraordinary at all. AI's coming and will probably be net good. There may be some inaccuracies in how it's reported and corporations are not all angels but for what field is that not true?

Also he says Theresa May has drunk cool aid by agreeing to fund AI but what she's funding is machine learning for cancer detection which is getting results like this

>In tests, it achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) — a measure of detection accuracy — of 99 percent. That's superior to human pathologists, who according to one recent assessment miss small metastases on individual slides as much as 62 percent of the time when under time constraints. [https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/12/google-ai- claims-99-accur...](https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/12/google-ai- claims-99-accuracy-in-metastatic-breast-cancer-detection/)

That's for metastatic breast cancer that kills 500,000 people a year. Overall Naughton's arguments seems a bit silly.

<comment><USER24> To be fair though, those numbers are the results of a single evaluation of the algorithm against a single group of human experts:

> _In the setting of a challenge competition, some deep learning algorithms > achieved better diagnostic performance than a panel of 11 pathologists > participating in a simulation exercise designed to mimic routine pathology > workflow; algorithm performance was comparable with an expert pathologist > interpreting whole-slide images without time constraints. Whether this > approach has clinical utility will require evaluation in a clinical > setting._

Certainly an impressive feat of image recognition, but far from revolutionising cancer diagnosis. It's also not clear to me that this would actually diagnose cancer more accurately if you factor in the ability of experts to consider other things than just the scans.

<comment><USER23> I guess so though it seems promising. Not quite sure how it'd work in real life. I've got two friends who went to the doctor with a headache and sore throat and were told it was nothing to worry about and then a year or two later found it was cancer - one died rapidly, one presently having a bunch of surgery. It would be good if there were a better way of screening that sort of stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What a stupid article. Attacks Theresa May for say AI will be good for healthcare; It will be.

</comment><comment><USER26> A database parser, is not AI, it is a parser. when a script, compares realworld cause effect relationships to database parses then rewrites the database to accurately resemble real life this is the beginning of AI. learning is an aspect of intelligence and they both feedback to eachother in a less than simple manner. i think Machine Learning is the glimmer of the holygrail being glimpsed.

</comment><comment><USER27> I guess such "counter-hype" feels like an attractive position to many. Just like general cynicism seems to be the mindset of our times. Maybe because people think being contrarian and/or negative makes them appear smart?

I don't necessarily buy into any predictions of what machine learning will accomplish in the future. But just the examples already available today are quite stunning, especially in images and language.

In any case, I don't see how "the media" is at fault here. I see far more "hype" of AI among the tech community than the larger media outlets. The possibility that AI could transform our economies certainly exists, and it would seem prudent to nurture the debate about the future of work even in the abscence of certainty.

<comment><AUTHOR> What is the tech community? The CEOs or the engineers/researchers/data scientists? Because they are not by any means the same entity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This sort of nonsense bothers me. So the guardian, a member of the media, is telling us that the media are unwittingly selling an AI fantasy? And the fantasy is that it's positive? Most of the news I see about AI is handwringingly pessimistic about AI being a disaster that will wipe out jobs and maybe the human race, which is the opposite of the thesis of the article. This sort of article is just trying to grab attention and took no thought to write, it has no substance, and took no research or deep insight to write.

And the idea that somehow we can get Law before we work out the Ethics of AI? You cant just have fiat law pulled out of a hat that works? How can you possibly expect the law to proactively regulate AI before we know what it is? Because at this point we don't know what it is, its an evolving thing just like the internet was when it first came out.

Frankly it's disappointing that drivel like this can make it onto the front page of HackerNews.

<comment><USER29> > So the guardian, a member of the media, is telling us that the media are > unwittingly selling an AI fantasy?

No, it is an opinion piece written by an academic that summarizes the findings of a research study of how media outlets covered AI in their articles.</comment></comment>


Acoustic delay line memory (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://jhallenworld.blogspot.com/2014/01/acoustic-delay-line-memory.html <comment><USER2> There is also a fantastic video where Cliff Stoll describes the Friden EC-132 calculator and shows off its acoustic delay line here: [https://youtu.be/2BIx2x-Q2fE](https://youtu.be/2BIx2x-Q2fE)

</comment><comment><USER3> There is another kind of acoustic delay line that was used in late 50's - early 60's that used nickel strips and took advantage of magnetostrictive property of Ni. I'm calling it acoustic because the memory was in the form of a compression wave propagated from driving magnet to sensing coil, then regenerated. Elliott Brother's 803 series computers used these for the CPU registers.

</comment><comment><USER4> I thought the UNIVAC used a form of wire memory, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plated_wire_memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plated_wire_memory) So calling it acoustic memory does seem a stretch for me, but then any electrical pulse plugged into a speaker would have an acoustic sound.

<comment><USER5> Mercury delay lines were a form of memory that predates and is distinct from plated wire memory. Plated wire memory is magnet memory, like core memory, but with permalloy coated wires rather than little permalloy donuts like the elements of core memory.

Delay line memory uses a transducer that puts vibrations into a medium in a tube (mercury) that travel the length of the tube at the speed of sound through that medium (1450 m/s) a transducer at the other end picks up the vibrations and decodes them back into bits. While the signals are being sent down the tube they are "in memory". By sending the signals back to the beginning of the tube a set of bits can be kept recycling indefinitely (120 bits per delay line in the UNIVAC I).

The UNIVAC I only had 1000 thirty-five bit words in its memory. These were store in a set of these mercury delay lines.

In my first digital design lab course at MIT there were a few old delay line memories kicking around which I briefly considered using for a project. I ended up needing only 5 shift registers of around 6 bits each so I just used flip flops to build them for the nim-playing computer I built.</comment></comment>


Introducing Get Satisfaction 2.0 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/07/15/introducing-get-satisfaction-20-a-new-take-on-customer-community/

<comment><USER2> Do you realize that the logo on your blog does not link to the product? Clicking that big "Get Satisfaction" banner at the top of the page simply takes me back to the blog home. There is no way to get to the site in question short of hand-editing the URL.

Instead, I just clicked the back button, so I have no idea what the site actually looks like or does.

<comment><USER3> The link is in the blue column on the right.

"Join us here as we chat about customer communities, the benefits of transparency, principles of hospitality, and what we're doing with _Get Satisfaction_."

Italicized bit links to <http://getsatisfaction.com></comment></comment>


South Korea: The Truth about the Dog Meat Business - <AUTHOR> http://www.tenetnews.com/south-korea-truth-dog-meat-business_10634.html <comment><USER2> ...so dog meat is wrong because of the anthropomorphism of the animals? because cows and horses and buffalo and ostrich don't have 'personalities'?

I get that its a cultural issue the west has with the east, but seriously, whats the issue other than they're pets in one hemisphere and a protein source in the other?

<comment><USER3> And there is still one tribe of people that are canibals. But that's just a cultural issue the rest of the world has with the tribe, but seriously, what's the issue other than they're people in almost the entire world and a protein source in the other?

Just as pretty much everyone has an issue with canibalism, the west has an issue with people eating dogs. It has nothing to do with anthropomorphism. We are not attributing human behaviour or charactaristics to the dogs. The dogs do in fact posses many traits that make them a companion animal and not a food animal.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but even in our own cultural framework we are biased. We have all the mental tools to apprehend what eating different animals means and, if most were really honest on ethics (and able to will themselves out of needing bacon, I can't really myself), I guess veganism would the norm.</comment></comment></comment>


Steve Jobs' Best Quotes - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/24/steve-jobss-best-quotes/ <comment><USER2> Folklore.org seems to be down right now, but my favorite Steve Jobs exchange is the following:

We worked our way up to the front of the crowd to get a good look at the units [Osborne 1] that were on display. We started to ask one of the presenters a technical question, when we were suprised to see Adam Osborne himself standing a few feet from us, looking at our show badges, preempting the response.

"Oh, some Apple folks", he addressed us in a condescending tone, "What do you think? The Osborne 1 is going to outsell the Apple II by a factor of 10, don't you think so? What part of Apple do you work in?"

When we told him that we were on the Mac team, he started to chuckle. "The Macintosh, I heard about that. When are we going to get to see it? Well, go back and tell Steve Jobs that the Osborne 1 is going to outsell the Apple II and the Macintosh combined!"

So, after returning to Cupertino later that afternoon, we told Steve about our encounter with Adam Osborne. He smiled, with a sort of mock anger, and immediately grabbed the telephone on the spare desk in Bud's office, and called information for the number of the Osborne Computer Corporation. He dialed the number, but it was answered by a secretary.

"Hi, this is Steve Jobs. I'd like to speak with Adam Osborne."

The secretary informed Steve that Mr. Osborne was not available, and would not be back in the office until tomorrow morning. She asked Steve if he would like to leave a message.

"Yes", Steve replied. He paused for a second. "Here's my message. Tell Adam he's an asshole."

There was a long delay, as the secretary tried to figure out how to respond. Steve continued, "One more thing. I hear that Adam's curious about the Macintosh. Tell him that the Macintosh is so good that he's probably going to buy a few for his children even though it put his company out of business!"

<comment><USER3> Did some digging about Adam Osborne. Made me quite sad for him...

It seems he was a failed (relatively speaking) genius. He is credited with building the first computer for people. Also was briefly considered a contemporary of Bill G and Steve Jobs:

"on April 3rd, 1981 when a startup called Osborne Computer Corporation announced the Osborne 1 at the West Coast Computer Faire at San Francisco's Brooks Hall. It was the first true mass-produced portable PC and one of the most popular computers of its time" (Source: <http://technologizer.com/2011/04/01/osborne-computer/>)

He also: "he founded another company that also collapsed–but not before helping to pioneer the idea of really cheap software"

He later died in India at the age of 64, in 2003. Where he was born and educated when he was a very young.

<comment><USER4> > It was the first true mass-produced portable PC

Erm... "portable" is not the word I'd use. Most would settle for "transportable". I'd rather use "draggable".

<comment> T-hawk I remember "luggable" as the adjective of choice for such machines through the late 80's and early 90's. The PC Magazine columnists (Dvorak and Seymour and others) were fond of it.

<comment><USER4> I remember "luggable". There was an April fool's section in BYTE in the late 80's advertising a line of hand luggage made to look like portable computers. The text said something about the size being painfully realistic and not fitting under an airplane seat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All armchair commentators would do well to consider this one:

Q: There's a lot of symbolism to your return. Is that going to be enough to reinvigorate the company with a sense of magic?

"You're missing it. This is not a one-man show. What's reinvigorating this company is two things: One, there's a lot of really talented people in this company who listened to the world tell them they were losers for a couple of years, and some of them were on the verge of starting to believe it themselves. But they're not losers. What they didn't have was a good set of coaches, a good plan. A good senior management team. But they have that now." [BusinessWeek, May 25, 1998]

<comment><USER6> To continue on this thread, I once heard Steve describe it this way:

"When I returned to Apple, I went to every engineering team and fired all the managers. Then, I went to the smartest engineer on each team and told them they were going to be the new manager. Of course, being the smartest engineers, they all immediately said, 'No'! So I told them, 'Look, either you're going to be the new manager, or I'll go hire someone like your old manager.' After that, every one of them agreed to take the position."

<comment><USER7> Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to send it out to a few people, but "I read it on HN" doesn't seem to have the same cache' (yet.. ;) ).

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately, this was from a talk Steve gave when I was working at Apple, so I'm quoting from memory...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This one, too -

\--

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." [Wired, February 1996]

<comment><USER9> That quote kills me.

I've always had an aesthetic revulsion to committing to giving people _exactly_ what they say they want. It belies a lack of imagination on the part of the creator, and smacks of a lack of integrity. However, most of the world is set up this way, despite my status as a 'professional.'

How do you claim more autonomy? I suppose this is part of the beauty of a startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> great stuff. Like Steve on Startups:

"The problem with the Internet startup craze isn't that too many people are starting companies; it's that too many people aren't sticking with it. That's somewhat understandable, because there are many moments that are filled with despair and agony, when you have to fire people and cancel things and deal with very difficult situations. That's when you find out who you are and what your values are.

"So when these people sell out, even though they get fabulously rich, they're gypping themselves out of one of the potentially most rewarding experiences of their unfolding lives. Without it, they may never know their values or how to keep their newfound wealth in perspective." [Fortune, Jan. 24, 2000]

<comment><USER11> I have posted this a few days back, but I guess in the context of persistance. He indeed did wait for the next big thing.

Rumelt congratulated Jobs on the turnaround but expressed skepticism about Apple's chances of overcoming the Windows-Intel lock on personal computers. "What are you going to do in the longer term?" Rumelt asked. "What's the strategy?" Jobs, he recalls, "just smiled and said, 'I am going to wait for the next big thing.'"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My two favorite Steve quotes both came during a talk with some interns one summer (paraphrasing from memory):

\-----

Intern: "Where do you see Apple in 5 years? 10 years?"

Steve: "I don't know. I'm too focused on where Apple is going tomorrow...and I think anyone that does tell you they know where their company will be in 5 years is lying, or doesn't have enough to worry about now."

(It was clear that Steve saw Apple's roadmap as a continuous progression from the present, rather than a plotted course to some arbitrary goal. That's an attitude that I've found has served me very well...)

\-----

Intern: "What are your dreams?"

Steve: "To not be asked questions like that...next"

</comment><comment><USER12> So many of these remind me of Howard Roark, the architect in Ayn Rand's novel "The Fountainhead."

The idea of designing products for yourself, that YOU want, not for a committee and not for the masses - and of loyalty to the central idea of the product all the way through. The idea of a man who is religious about his work - but who is not actually religious. Building something in your own image - for Roark, it was actual buildings; for Jobs, as has been said, it was Apple.

<comment><USER13> A lot of the popular computer languages were designed rather by individual persons, or small teams, not comittes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two of my favorites are not there:

"I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something."

and

"I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success — I have no problem with their success. They've earned their success, for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products."

<comment><USER14> Actually the one about third rate products is in the article

<comment><USER4> True. Must have skipped that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Steve's advice to Nike:

"Nike makes some of the best products in the world. Products that you lust after. But you also make a lot of crap. Just get rid of the crappy stuff and focus on the good stuff."

</comment><comment><USER16> "It's like when IBM drove a lot of innovation out of the computer industry before the microprocessor came along. Eventually, Microsoft will crumble because of complacency, and maybe some new things will grow. But until that happens, until there's some fundamental technology shift, it's just over." [Wired, February 1996]

Wow I find this one especially prescient. Imo it shows real insight, and shows he wasn't following some pipe dream.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

I think this is simply one of the best quotes I've ever come across.

<comment><USER18> has lots of gravity and truth in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> There is a missing quote from Steve Jobs that I really like.

"It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do."

</comment><comment><USER20> One of my favorites not on there.

"We do no market research. We don't hire consultants. The only consultants I've ever hired in my 10 years is one firm to analyze Gateway's retail strategy so I would not make some of the same mistakes they made [when launching Apple's retail stores]."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps the most pertinent to startup life: ""It's more fun to be a pirate than to join the navy."

<comment><USER21> Perhaps in the fantasy in our heads. But in real life, pirates are desperate people, usually repeatedly risking their lives in order to stay alive. In comparison, all the people I know in the navy absolutely love it - they like the life, they absolutely love the travelling from port to port, cameraderie, high tech playtoys, so on and so forth.

<comment><USER22> I think he meant it more in the context of olden times, where neither pirates nor navy had "high tech playtoys" and piracy was a little more common than today

<comment><USER23> Also the distinction between navies and pirates was a lot less clearly defined than it is now.

Both John Paul Jones and Sir Walter Raleigh were regarded as pirates by their adversaries and as naval heroes at home.

<comment><USER24> And those two would be considered among the least piratic! The English Crown granted licenses that gave commercial vessels the rights to any plunder from Spanish ships and settlements. It was effectively a loose mercenary affiliation. Deal: We empower you to commit legally sanctioned piracy. In return you make life difficult for our enemies and cut us in on the proceeds. Soldiers in war were never as restrained as period movies would have us believe, so imagine being boarded or invaded by a desperate privateer crew with not even the semblance of honor and soldierly gallantry to moderate their behavior.

Ahem. Back to Steve.

<comment><USER23> I think it's allowed in the circumstances:

<http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Pirate_Flag.txt>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This one's my favorite -

\--

Q: There's a lot of symbolism to your return. Is that going to be enough to reinvigorate the company with a sense of magic?

"You're missing it. This is not a one-man show. What's reinvigorating this company is two things: One, there's a lot of really talented people in this company who listened to the world tell them they were losers for a couple of years, and some of them were on the verge of starting to believe it themselves. But they're not losers. What they didn't have was a good set of coaches, a good plan. A good senior management team. But they have that now." [BusinessWeek, May 25, 1998]

</comment><comment><USER25> I love that perhaps his most insightful and quote-able interview ever was to Playboy in 1985.

<comment><USER26> Playboy has a long tradition of great writing, although in recent decades it seems like its literary niche has been picked up by Vanity Fair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "We think the Mac will sell zillions, but we didn't build the Mac for anybody else. We built it for ourselves."

Seems contrary to advice I often read from people here.

<comment><USER28> Yes, but you might have also heard about "eating your own dog food."

<comment><USER27> I have, but that just refers to using your own product, not building it for yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Two of my favorite Steve stories:

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Gobble_Gobble_Gobble.txt)

<http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html>

</comment><comment><USER30> His answer the 1996 interview question with Wired about technology revolutionizing our lives definitely seems at odds with what we've listened to him tout about such things as the iPad.

<comment><USER31> I'm guessing you are referring to this passage, but I can only guess since you forgot to specify:

"Q: What's the biggest surprise this technology will deliver?

A: The problem is I'm older now, I'm 40 years old, and this stuff doesn't change the world. It really doesn't.

Q: That's going to break people's hearts.

A: I'm sorry, it's true. Having children really changes your view on these things. We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It's been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much - if at all.

These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people we might not otherwise. You may have a child with a birth defect and be able to get in touch with other parents and support groups, get medical information, the latest experimental drugs. These things can profoundly influence life. I'm not downplaying that. But it's a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light - that it's going to change everything. Things don't have to change the world to be important.

The Web is going to be very important. Is it going to be a life-changing event for millions of people? No. I mean, maybe. But it's not an assured Yes at this point. And it'll probably creep up on people.

It's certainly not going to be like the first time somebody saw a television. It's certainly not going to be as profound as when someone in Nebraska first heard a radio broadcast. It's not going to be that profound."

15 years later...yeah, probably not an accurate call on "the web". But I think I sort of understand what he's trying to say. And am mindful that he was trying to be a bit provocative.

<comment><USER32> "Having children really changes your view on these things."

Did he? In true Apple form, we (at least I) know absolutely nothing about his private life. Only hint of offspring is on his new house blueprint marked "playroom".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think $404.50/share is about the best quote he's ever had.

</comment><comment><USER34> Great 1995 interview with Jobs from the Smithsonian:

<http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/comphist/sj1.html>

 _In our business, one person can't do anything anymore. You create a team of people around you. You have a responsibility of integrity of work to that team. Everybody does try to turn out the best work that they can._

</comment><comment><USER35> The bicycle analogy to computers.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c

Paraphrase: The computer is to the human mind, what the bicycle is to our ability to travel.

</comment><comment><USER36> My favorite quote from Steve Jobs: [http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Signing_Party.txt&topic=Apple%20Spirit&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date)

</comment><comment><USER37> Sums up my thoughts on vi:

> Some people are saying that we ought to put an IBM PC on every desk in > America to improve productivity. It won't work. The special incantations you > have to learn this time are the "slash q-zs" and things like that.

<comment><USER38> Yeah, but a good portion of Mac users would never use it if it weren't UNIX under the covers and if it didn't enable them to work they way they like (from command line and vi). Without these people advocating the platform, it would be a lot less successful.

<comment><USER39> Agreed. The sole reason I use a Mac is because it's BSD + a far far superior replacement to X Windows. Among countless other subtle perfections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I am eagerly waiting for the Steve Jobs's biography. Its based on 40 interviews with Jobs. I am hoping there are a lot more such interesting stories.

</comment><comment><USER41> "I want to put a ding in the universe."</comment>


Best Practices for Writing Bash Scripts - <AUTHOR> https://kvz.io/bash-best-practices.html <comment><USER2> > Avoid using #!/usr/bin/env bash -e (vs set -e), because when someone runs > your script as bash ./script.sh, the exit on error will be ignored.

Besides that, it wouldn't work on at least linux. You'd get the error:

> env: 'bash -e': No such file or directory

because of how everything after the first space is taken as one argument in the shebang.

> Surround your variables with {}. Otherwise bash will try to access the > $ENVIRONMENT_app variable in /srv/$ENVIRONMENT_app, whereas you probably > intended /srv/${ENVIRONMENT}_app.

I think using the braces all the time instead of only as needed is an exaggerated solution. The rule of what's parsed as the identifier is pretty intuitive. `_` is a valid identifier character so the identifier continues. I can't see this mistake not being obvious, especially with syntax highlighting. I think adding braces all the time would just add too much syntax-cruft that would obscure important details.

> __base="$(basename ${__file} .sh)"

They forgot to quote the variable expansion there.

<comment><USER3> I don't agree. Adding braces all the time leads to a more cognitive association of what is the variable. IMHO, this leads to better script writing and ease, in my case, of transitioning to other languages. Not so much because of the braces, but of the context of a variable.

If that makes any sense at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <<if [ "${NAME:-}" = "Kevin" ] will set $NAME to be empty if it's not declared >>

The OP probably meant "${NAME:=}" not "${NAME:-}"</comment>


Ask HN: Working as part of an interview, for free? - <AUTHOR>

I recently applied to a startup for a development position. I was told I would do a "trial interview" which was really just a feature implementation they needed. I was sent an NDA which also talked of when to invoice and had "rate: TBD" which i put in my rate next to. the spec was large, and I wasn't expected to do all of it, but I implemented the core of it, which was nontrivial; it took me over 25 hours to implement.
Now, I just talked with the boss today, and he said I wouldn't be paid for that time; that's part of the interview, he says. But I sank more than half my work week into this, and thought this was just a 1099 until i may or may not go on full time, because i was delivering a business feature and not just doing an arbitrary test.
Anyway, what should I do? I'm not so worried if I get the job, but if I don't then I feel like I've been cheated. <comment><USER2> If you sent back the NDA, it mentions an invoice, you included your rate and they accepted the document you might now have a valid contract.

A lawyer will sort this out for you. Until then enjoy the classic 'f*ck you, pay me' video [https://vimeo.com/22053820](https://vimeo.com/22053820)

</comment><comment><USER3> Actually, if you signed a contract and provided a rate, and they accepted it and they didn't pay you, they have (I am not a lawyer so in my opinion and this isn't legal advice) violated the contract. That may mean the NDA is not enforceable, depending on the terms.

If you have not been paid then you also still have copyright over the code.

For small claims, I think you want to be able to prove that you invoiced them, then serve them.

Or talk to a lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally, whichever startup did this is a douchebag and I wouldn't want to work for them regardless.

I have never heard of an interview done this way. I am familiar with and okay with a coding test, ok with a proof of your abilities, not ok with implementing code for the company sans payment.

My 2 cents, is they agreed to a price and code so they should pay. Frankly, I'd ask an attorney to send them a letter stating as much on your behalf. Might cost you a few bucks but seems reasonable. If they still refuse, I'd seriously consider a public shaming, although I know this isn't likely a good idea, it just seems so appropriate. lol

</comment><comment><USER5> Dilbert covered the same topic today [0]

[0]: [http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-08-01](http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-08-01)

</comment><comment><USER6> Companies that don't compensate interviewees for their time working on actual features are not the type of company you want to work for.

Culture is set from the top and it sounds like the company culture sucks. Don't join them and I hope you didn't send in the code.

</comment><comment><USER7> I see kickstarters trying to use this to weasel out free work.

If they're engaging in such activity, their financial predicament probably isn't too good to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER8> What should you do? Stop whining.

If they didn't tell you upfront that you'd be compensated for your time -- you have no reasonable expectation of getting compensated for your time.

More than likely that "business feature" is the same task they give every applicant -- they just want to see how you do with something that looks like a real-world task.

We do that here: We have a fake project that we pull a fake task out of, and have applicants pair with one of us on its solution. During the "work", the boss will throw us a couple curve balls too -- it's interesting to see how applicants react.

We do however, pay them a modest amount for their time.

<comment><AUTHOR> i would not take issue if this was a fake project meant to test my skillset. it's replacing app functionality with a more robust solution; it is a feature request for a change to be made to production which i implemented the core of.

It is very clear that this will go on to be user facing. What is not is if i will receive any kind of reimbursement for doing the work; or if this is just a tactic they employ: get people to work for free in an interview, don't hire them, repeat. I truly hope that is not the case.

<comment><USER8> Each of our applicants believes the fake task we give them is meant for production too.

In reality, it's a very old, inactive project. We simply adjust timestamps to make it _look_ current.

It is presented as if it were the bread and butter of our biggest client. And we do our best to make everything seem realistic.

I doubt any applicant, before being hired, has ever figured out that the "feature" they had worked on was something that had been built dozens of times already.

It's always the same.

The "product" they're working on is the remnants of a side-project that went nowhere.

But like I said, we _do_ pay people for their time unless we hire them. We do it onsite. And we do one 7-hour workday. And we pay $250.

And we do that mainly so nobody is suspicious that they had been duped into working for free.

It's _possible_ but imo, unlikely that your work is actually making its way into a shipping product.

<comment><AUTHOR> It sounds like you guys do it a respectable way. But I don't understand why you can't accept the facts as I present them, as I have given no reason for you to doubt my claims or abilities to properly assess the situation. Maybe you think it's just too crazy to be true? Because that's what I'm thinking for sure... But them be the facts despite my preference of otherwise.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Watch Hulu Around the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/05/05/05gigaom-how-to-watch-hulu-around-the-world-12208.html

<comment><USER2> That was fast. I downloaded the app (which mostly looks like a frontend to OpenVPN) for OS X. Hulu then told me when I tried to watch a video that my IP address is from a known anonymizer and to turn it off or go away. :-(

Time to figure out how to turn my Linode VPS into a (non-open) proxy.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm Canadian and I've tried Hotspot shield to watch Hulu. It does work, but I find the performance terrible. There is quite a bit of overhead, it seems, in tunneling through a free VPN.</comment>