Dart 1.8: library improvements and experimental support for enums - <AUTHOR> http://news.dartlang.org/2014/11/dart-18-library-improvements-and.html?m=1

<comment><USER2> Out of the myriad new languages the crop out almost daily, Dart stands out as clean, modern, fast and ready to roll with a large standard library. The team is strong and stacked with experts in the field.

On the flip side, algebraic data types have been invented in the 70es and are fundamental to the logic of programming. I don't understand the process through which an otherwise informed team ships half-baked sum types in 2014 in the guise of enums.

<comment><USER3> Sum types and subclasses cover much of the same problem space just with different trade-offs. Sum types give you exhaustiveness checking, while subclasses give you open-ended extensibility.

Given that Dart already has subclasses and they're the natural way for people to solve most problems where you'd reach for a sum type in other languages, I don't think there's as much need for enums to be larger and feature-rich. Instead, the language team focused them on the narrow use cases of wanting just an exhaustively checked numeric subrange, similar to enums in C#.

I do personally wish you could add methods and fields to them (á la Java but without case-specific methods and fields), but I think the language team wanted something easier to compile to a bare number in JS. Maybe they'll get added later.

<comment><USER2> Unless I'm missing something, enums are closed, thus overlap with sum types for the use-cases. Subclasses are an implementation detail in this context. Here is an example that uses subclasses to implement generalized enums, aka sum types:

      enum List {
        Cons(head, tail) {...}
        Nil {...}

        int length() {
          switch (this) {
            case Cons(head, tail): return 1 + length(tail)
            case Nil: return 0
          }
        }
      }

Mind you, this is syntactic sugar and you can do it by hand with enums + sublcasses. But the whole point of clean languages is to remove unnecessary boilerplate :)

<comment><USER4> Haxe has another example of this: [http://haxe.org/manual/types-enum- instance.html](http://haxe.org/manual/types-enum-instance.html)

Note that enums in Haxe are pure data types, and can't have member functions and/or values. However, since enums are public by nature, it's possible to achieve this easily with "using": [http://try.haxe.org/#87bF5](http://try.haxe.org/#87bF5)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm from C# background and I can't imagine doing large client apps in JS anymore - maybe I'm too old but Dart IDE and integrated debugger is something I can't live without.

Dart is single best client side tech for me.

<comment><USER6> Since you're already invested in the MS stack Did you try TypeScript ?

If yes how does it compare to Dart ?

<comment><USER5> I left MS stack (not a big fan of Windows), so having really cross platform IDE is a big win for me.

Can't say anything on TS - but AFAIK it's mostly syntactic sugar on JS, no first class IDE on non-Windows, no pub (dedicated Dart package manager), no native VM (I'm also doing server side on Dart recently) and still it's possible shot your foot just like in JS - saying all that - I will have to really try it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Any news on Dart VM in chrome? I was planning to make a 3D game that uses SIMD but realized JS doesn't support it yet. Are they waiting for ES7?

<comment><AUTHOR> Its really, really slow, but it may come up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1.8 already? Wow. Yet enums are only now being added (the proposal was from 2013)

This puts me off Dart - for now - for two reasons.

Firstly, the language appears to have been rushed. Yes, great tooling, but was the language rushed out the door by corporate Google? Will they ditch Dart just as quickly if it doesn't gain traction? Lots of risk in learning Dart.

Second, if it wasn't rushed out the door, then the language designers made a mistake. It's nice they can admit that but it also shows a lack of conviction and belief in the language they have created. So what makes Dart unique? If I want Java, I use Java. Contrast with Golang and the reasons the team give for not having generics.

<comment><USER9> From what I see Dart was definitely not rushed. On the contrary. The team puts a lot of thought into what goes into the language and what doesn't (from a language, implementation and tooling pov).

With languages it is easy to add stuff but hard (often impossible) to remove it so it is important to understand the change and make sure it fits well with what is in the language and what might be added later.

It obviously helps to have a great team that has done exactly that many times over for many many other languages used in production.

Dart is a very clean language and I guess it made sense to postpone non- essential stuff like Enums & Async/Await. This doesn't mean those aren't awesome and great to have, it just means those things like other things better aren't rushed into the language but well thought through.</comment></comment>


React Compound Slider – Tiny (5kb) react slider with no opinion about markup - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sghall/react-compound-slider <comment><USER2> The demo does not work well on iOS/Safari. The whole page scrolls horizontally when you try to drag the sliders.</comment>


Taking the measure of unit qualifiers - <AUTHOR> http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/max-unleashed-and-unfettered/4439790/Taking-the-measure-of-unit-qualifiers

<comment><USER2> The Germans still use the old version where a billion is 10^12 with the added benefit of having to deal with just billions of debt (instead of trillions as the rest of the world).</comment>


J. Gosling: Oracle is right. Google is wrong. Google screwed with Java big time. - <AUTHOR> http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/the_shit_finally_hits_the#comment-1281716060000

<comment><USER2> That comment is by a James Katt; the attribution is below the remark, not above.</comment>


0h h1 game is now available on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Q42/0hh1

<comment><USER2> Looks like they've fixed my biggest gripe about the game, that it showed you exactly what you had to click to win.

<comment><USER3> Yes we tried to fix most of the things that people didn't like. What do you think of it now?

<comment><USER2> At work so I haven't tried it out yet, I'll give it a go tonight. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great game. It would be nice if the game could remember the first wrong move and show that at the end.

<comment><USER3> Should it ask before it does that?

<comment><USER4> Maybe, yes. You still have to think about which rule you violated / why your logic was wrong, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's broken here now. "Utils.isDoubleTapBug is not a function"

<comment><USER6> It is working for me. What browser is this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is an amazing game concept.

<comment><USER3> The concept is based on the Japanese "Takuzu".</comment></comment>


Chrome Releases: Stable Channel Update - <AUTHOR> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2015/04/stable-channel-update_14.html <comment><USER2> Push API and Notifications API I wonder what Google will do with this two.</comment>


Shipping software with docker - <AUTHOR> https://solidgeargroup.com/docker-shipping-software <comment><USER2> I think is a good tool even for developing, everybody with the same environment and very close to the production one

<comment><USER3> Several things that you can improve with docker:

\- Hard to create dev instances

\- Speed of deployment

\- Debugging problems because it's "different in production"

\- Manual intervention

\- Confidence in deployment

\- Hard to setup a new member working on something

<comment><USER4> WOW, I haven't though about some of them. Thanks</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft unveils Windows Phone 8.1 with personal assistant Cortana - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2014/04/02/microsoft-unveils-windows-phone-8-1-personal-assistant-cortana-action-center-customizable-lockscreens/?utm_medium=Spreadus&awesm=tnw.to_c4eMC&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=social%20media <comment><USER2> What baffles me is why the hell Microsoft didn't follow Apple's route of controlling their own distribution? Now Windows Mobile users have to figure out when their network is going to distribute the update[1]? That is hideous from a user standpoint.

Microsoft has the money to convince the carriers, and probably a lot of weight as well. Why wouldn't they avoid that nightmare?

Granted I don't have a windows phone so it doesn't affect me, but my brief foray into the Android world frustrated the hell out of me in this regard. With Android it was an extra step: Android released, phone manufacturer needed to build their own version of it, then my carrier needed to decide when I could access it.

When Apple announces an update, I can download it whenever I want it.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/04/micros...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/04/microsoft-announces-windows-phone-8-1-with-cortana-coming- in-april/)

<comment><USER3> Can someone please explain the role that carriers play in the United States? In most countries, the carrier simply provides you with a SIM card that allows you to make use of their network, but they have nothing to do with your hardware / OS. How come carriers control OS updates in the United States?

To me, this sounds as absurd as an ISP having control of your computer - imagine if you had to wait till your ISP allowed you to update your OS. Yet that seems to be your situation with respect to mobile.

<comment><USER4> Actually in this case, you even get your PC from your ISP. So i think it works out like this:

first the OS people update it. Then the manufacturers launch a device with said OS. Then your ISP gets to sell said devices to you. (or maybe you can update on your existing device but the ISP still has to approve it)

In simpler words:

In US, people do not directly buy their phones from the manufacturers. They buy the PHONE from the carrier, who also includes a SIM with said phone. And the cost of the phone is distributed over several months and is combined with your monthly cellular service charges.

Pro: you get to have expensive phones for far less.

Con: The carrier apparently gets a lot of say. In fact you can't even switch carriers easily. They make you sign a contact.

Interesting fact: Originally when the smart phones came out in the pre-iPhone era, the carrier's tried to control app stores by having exclusive, carrier specific app-stores. It was apple who convinced one carrier (can't remember which one) to let Apple control the app store and thus this revolution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Kudos to MS for making their personal assistant extendable by third party apps. Neither Apple nor Google have managed to do that yet.

<comment><USER6> It's basically a pluggable Google Now with APIs. I think it's great.

<comment><USER7> Google Now is already pluggable through the in-app searches. Custom cards are not available though, hopefully they are coming soon.

<comment><USER8> I'm hoping this is announced at Google IO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Named after the fictional Halo character:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortana)

<comment><USER10> I think it's a fascinating move on Microsoft's part to integrate a video game character into a users day-to-day reality. I can imagine some nostalgia fueled sales happening as a result. But moreover, I can't help but be reminded of the movie Her. Where the lines between our physical reality and our digital reality start to blur

<comment><USER11> The reference to Her is especially relevant, since in the Halo series Cortana was clearly designed for sex appeal, and romantic tension between Master Chief (the player character) and Cortana was strongly implied.

<comment><USER12> Yeah that seems kinda edgy, epecially for Microsoft, long one of the blandest companies in tech.

Not being familiar with the Halo games, I did an image search for "Cortana" \-- and while not exactly NSFW, I did immediately close the window, haha:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=cortana&client=safari&rls=en...](https://www.google.com/search?q=cortana&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=26k8U7bSPMm0kgXkjIC4Cw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1392&bih=1087)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am not a WP user, but this makes me want to give it a shot. Microsoft Research has some of the best researchers and some really impressive projects. I'd really love to see more of that research being put to use like Google does. I guess it is starting to happen now.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd like to be able to talk to my Windows 8.1 PC the same way I can talk to my Android/iOS/Windows Phone. Would be very handy I think.

<comment><USER15> You can use Google Now in Chrome now.

<comment> k-mcgrady I don't think you can talk to it though, you can just click an alert button and see your cards.

Separately there is the hot word plugin (I think that's what it's called) that lets you say 'ok Google' when on the US Google homepage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Days like this make me sad that I can't have the best of Windows Phone, iOS and Android at the same time. A "Cortana for Android" would be great. Some day perhaps phones will be standardized enough that, like the web, we can develop once and run anywhere without major sacrifices.

<comment><USER17> Can I have the launcher from Palm WebOS too?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am slowly becoming convinced that the next killer app is the personal assistant app. My life is sharded between contact books and voip apps and IM and email that hardly if ever talk to each other or make my life easier.

Its a huge market, but space for a lot of niches.

<comment><USER19> What we need is to _simplify_ our lives, not to make so complicated to the extent that we feel lost without personal assistant on our wrists, pockets and in front of our eyes. This whole trend is in reverse direction. We are slapping more complexity on top of more complexity. This is only going to make people's live more complex, requiring even more smarter personal assistants. It's a vicious cycle.

<comment><USER18> Let me compare how simple my life is compared to the life of my ancestors:

I have a toothache - I simply go to the dentist.

I need food - I simply go to a shop

I need water - i simply turn on a tap.

The "complexity" of my modern, urban life is the _cost_ of having my life already very very simple.

Yes the noise of my daily life feels more complex, but there is a great deal of signal if I chose my perspective correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For me the biggest feature is being able to type questions in private, like Fantastical. I use Siri when I'm alone at home or in the car but I regularly find myself checking before using it. It's awkward saying "remind me to pick up extra maxi-pads for the wife on the way home" to siri when I'm at work within earshot of my co-workers. Even less private things than that can be weird.

</comment><comment><USER21> Is there any information available about the accessibility support in 8.1 yet? I saw that Narrator will be included but no information on weather that will provide full access like iOS and Android offer. If it does I will be picking up a 520 to play with.

</comment><comment><USER22> "Microsoft realizes mobile moves faster than the traditional desktop world it is used to, and asking the industry to wait for Windows 9 and Windows Phone 9 is simply not an option."

Other than being a bigger number, what radically different changes is the author expecting for Windows Phone 9? It seems like all the fundamentals are there. The changes to the OS at this point are rather incremental

<comment><USER23> I'm guessing threshold which would be huge if the rumors are true. It would combine a lot of the OS cores for desktop, phone, and xbox to allow developers to write once and run across Microsoft devices. [http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/windows-9-features- ne...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/windows-9-features-news- changes/#!CwOdu)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> \- How well can it handle natural language, compared to Siri?

\- Can it handle an interaction such as:

\-- "Michael, you've got a new message from Paul"

\-- "Read it for me"

\-- 'Ok, Paul wrote: "Where should we meet today?"'

\-- "Answer with "in the Starbucks, at noon as we discussed".

\-- 'Ok, here is what I understood: "In the Starbucks, at noon as we discussed". Shall I send it?

\-- "yes"

\-- "Ok, your reply has been sent.

<comment><USER25> Windows Phone devices already worked like that before Cortana. But in a more pre-scripted fashion. Something like \-- "You've got a new message from Paul, read it or ignore?" \-- Read it. And so on (including the dictation and sending of the reply)

<comment><USER24> That's not how I think of 'worked like that'. I have no interest in learning pre-scripted voice commands. Once you have everything scripted, implementing an interaction as I posted is almost as trivial as a CLI. That's why I put 'natural language' as the first criteria, which renders the second task a lot more challenging.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Just what I need, a personal assistant named after a Rampant AI. What's next, "New Samsung Galaxy XYZZY Now With GLaDOS Personal Assistant! (neurotoxin emitters sold separately)"? :)

<comment><USER27> That would be pretty cool in my opinion, always wanted to have GlaDos as my personal assistent.

<comment><USER28> But it'd make you do tests all days

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> As people came to know how to use Windows powered PC without Start Button, Microsoft came back with tradition in Windows 8.1. It's great to see how Microsoft is going through transition phase and they don't want to miss a single thing that would lead them into trouble. As Microsoft is giving free Windows Phone OS to some of Indian smartphone manufacturer & Free Windows to any of the manufacturer who are making device with less than 9 inch screen. This strategy shows how much Microsoft is committed towards Smartphone & Tablet.

</comment><comment><USER30> The story writer has entirely lost the connection with Halo.

</comment><comment><USER31> Tribute to Halo!

</comment><comment><USER32> This is amazing!!! I'm thrilled that Microsoft has started getting serious in more intelligent technology! I foresee in a not too distant future where Microsoft will bring groundbreaking artificial intelligence technologies to the people around the world! It's like I'm watching the movie "Her"!

</comment><comment><USER33> Getting Harry Potter for the unveiling was quite a coup.

</comment><comment><USER34> [http://i.imgur.com/Vm0ECLy.png](http://i.imgur.com/Vm0ECLy.png)

wat

<comment><USER35> Do you not see the big 'A' at the start? 'At its Build 2014 conference' makes sense.

<comment><USER36> Nevertheless it's hard not to notice that the first word appears to be "tits". Is there a typesetting term for that, like keming?

<comment><USER37> "kerning"... but (meta) if you read it in an improperly kerned font it probably looking like "keming"

<comment><USER38> epic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Microsoft has decided to gather all Halo fans with Cortana! Pretty neat

</comment><comment><USER40> Uh, does that cartoon rendition of "Cortana" remind anyone else of the Corpse Bride?

[http://whatculture.com/film/tim-burton-ranking-his-movies- fr...](http://whatculture.com/film/tim-burton-ranking-his-movies-from-worst- to-best.php/8)

Creepy...

</comment><comment><USER41> Windows Phone 8.1 is the most massive update ever on any platforms to date

</comment><comment><USER42> So much for the "big" update. I've had a WP8 device for over 10 months and I've actively used it for most of that period. There are _many_ things I consider a downside of varying importance (some of which are a result of the extremely closed design) and the only thing they fix is a VPN client and that's to unknown extent. WP8 is a toy more than anything.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm glad Microsoft is finally catching up with the major smartphone OSs. Virtual assistant is indispensable feature (I'm using Google Now with my stock Android), it's very helpful and combined with great integration between gmail, calendar, driving history, purchases, etc. etc. it's realistically my dashboard to go a check stuff. Is Cortana doing the same? Because I think Siri is more like a useless to y to brag about, but not really helpful at anything.

</comment><comment><USER43> This might me really nerdy but the name reminds me of the Farscape Episode "DNA Mad Scientist" (1x9 or so). A lab rat with increased intelligence enslaves the original scientific staff, and keeps the original chief scientist as an assistant, called... wait for it... "Cornata".

<comment><USER44> My first thought was that it was based on the AI character in the Halo series.

[http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Cortana](http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Cortana)

<comment><USER45> In Halo 3, wasn't it revealed that Cortana was built from DNA from chief scientist whats-her-name?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't the Amazon Echo discussed as the huge sensation it is? - <AUTHOR> Just seeing the reviews on Amazon (26k+ and avg rating of 4.5 stars), it's amazing to me that it's not common knowledge among my friends, tech-savvy and otherwise.  The majority have never heard of the Echo. Is Amazon just really bad at marketing products? Or have they gone slowly until the feature set is more mature and built out? <comment><USER2> As previously noted, the always-on microphone probably has something to do with it. If it had come at a different, less paranoid time, I'm sure it would be looked upon as the Star Trek computer we have always dreamed of. Yes, Siri and Cortana are reasonably slick in their implementations, but they're confined to your pockets for most of their lives. To be able to ask an empty room a question and receive a response used to be cool, but now, not knowing who's harvesting your conversations is a real gamechanger.

<comment><USER3> You think its ok to have a device that is always with you and listening, but not sitting in your kitchen and always listening? I don't understand your distinction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've played with it and hacked together a very generic app just to see how it was...so I can say that I think it has much potential and an exciting future...but...

1\. Amazon is still pushing out it's own ideas and features for it...they haven't fully released it to the wild west of developers (many have learned to wait until the dust settles before wasting time/energy on potential features that will be blocked or taken over by the powers-that-be).

2\. The speaker bit is cool, but really it's just Siri in a speaker instead of a phone (very cool but not a "wow" out of the box)...it's the next gen. that I think everyone is really excited about and waiting for (when the SDK, and api access, is baked into more than just one stand alone speaker - that is, if/when it becomes the voice interaction for the internet of things; _that_ becomes super exciting and interesting)

3\. Not an adoption limitation, but I can say that having worked with the v1 of the tools for building on this stuff...it's still pretty clunky and painful. I think they (AWS) are adopting and upgrading that quickly...but there are some hurdles there as well before "anyone can build a voice powered/interactive thing" can become a reality (and that's the HUGE sensation IMHO)...

</comment><comment><USER5> The Amazon Echo is a niche product that attracts a niche audience.

The Echo only does limited things and is locked to Amazon's ecosystem. You're paying $200 for an addon to Amazon Prime Music which is itself pretty mediocre compared to the other services in the field (Pandora, Spotify, Google All Access, Apple Music, etc). So really the only people who benefit from Echo are people with large MP3 collections they've uploaded to Amazon's Music Cloud, which itself is a niche thing to do now (unlimited streaming is "in" and MP3's are "out").

Plus Amazon Echo is a music appliance that doesn't focus on the actual sound quality. One speaker and one subwoofer, and even then they're muffled by the casing. So really you wind up with a bit of a gimmick. Voice recognition and a mediocre sound experience locked into Amazon's ecosystem for $200.

You can buy a $30 bluetooth speaker all over the place. The sound quality on them is mediocre too, but you've only paid $30 and at least they don't worsen the sound needlessly via the gimmicking round shape. The speakers as they are are unobstructed. So why pay $200 for a bad experience when you can pay $30?

<comment><USER6> Is it really all about music? It seems like the Echo could become an IoT hub also. Or since it has an app ecosystem, perhaps it will do things you'd do now with Synology/FreeNAS. I would love to see "a server in every house", with a rich app ecosystem, where it's easy for non-techies to run their own music/video library, their own email server, their own blog, etc. It could be like Sandstorm but not in the Cloud. The Echo might not be it, since Amazon wants you to use their own cloud offerings, but I wonder if it is possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My 2 cents is they have kept the marketing centered around a smaller group of people initially with limited mass exposure. I think for the exact reason you listed, while it is a way cool device it is also still finding its feature set.

At the same time, I don't think Amazon is the best at marketing as they have shown in the past with other devices. But I can't blame them with the echo wanting to start slow and gain traction and expand it out.

As to their feature set, I signed up for the dev/api access for it over 6 months ago but still have never heard anything back from Amazon. So if they want people to expand its feature set to make it better it would make sense to approve dev access a bit more timely. I have heard a few others tell me the same thing so I don't think it is just me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Having all conversations hosted in a cloud and analyzed by AMZ is hardy sensational for the privacy aware user...

</comment><comment><USER9> Judging by past experiences, I am specifically avoiding Amazon-branded electronic products. Amazon, the store, is great and very convenient. But Amazon-branded stuff always tends toward lock-in and lacks interoperability with other services. No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER10> Are you a shill for the NSA or just Amazon? A device that is "always listening" is a huge sensation but is is not amazing. It is awful. Why would anyone want an always on microphone letting people eavesdrop, literally, on everything they say?</comment>


Rome vs Greece: a clash of empires - <AUTHOR> https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/rome-vs-greece-a-little-known-clash-of-empires-1.3523821 <comment><USER2> >After a few weeks of marching and countermarching by Philip and Flamininus in central Thessaly, battle was joined (almost by accident) at Cynoscephalae, hills known as The Dogs' Heads. Invincible on flat ground as long as its flanks were protected, the phalanx was dangerously exposed on hillsides. Highly manoeuvrable, veterans of the Hannibalic war, the legionaries wreaked a terrible slaughter.

One of the big factors at Cynoscephalae and later at Pydna was the extreme flexibility and how much initiative junior officers had. At Cynoscephalae, the turning point of the battle came when a junior Roman officer saw that one of the halves of the phalanx was still forming up, and immediately sent Roman units against that unready part of the phalanx, routing them, and then crashing down on the rear of the other part of the phalanx that was actually winning against the Romans. At Pydna, Lucius Aemilius Paullus the Roman commander was able to give the general order to exploit the gaps, and let the various unit commanders implement it.

The combination of Roman training combined with the tactical flexibility stood Rome in very good stead for centuries.

As an aside, it is not necessarily the unit, but the commander who knows how to put it to great use that matters. Alexander the Great used an army of which the core was the phalanx to win battles over many, many types of terrain. He knew how to use the phalanx well in combination with calvary and light infantry to devastating effect.

<comment><USER3> I just watched a documentary about the franco-prussian war, and they said that 'lower rank initiative' was a factor in the outcome. French weren't really wanting to fight, Prussian were. They would try everything to make a difference, even if it meant disobeying orders somehow.

<comment><USER4> Which documentary?

<comment><USER3> this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhbgJJ_M1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DhbgJJ_M1s)

seems for the UK

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's likely that Alexander would have taken over Italy had he lived a couple more decades. He definitely could have done it. Rome was not yet the powerhouse it became and he knew how to lead an army better than literally anyone in history. There were many Greek colonies in Italy but the whole peninsular might have become dominated by Greeks.

By the time Rome got around to taking over Greece it wasn't even a contest. It's actually lucky that the Greek states weren't unified into a force powerful enough to be an existential threat to Rome. It would have likely suffered the same fate as Carthage. Instead it essentially got colonized and incorporated into the Roman empire in a way that could be called a co-equal merger. Rome kind of became Greece v2.

History is full of civilizations that fought bravely against invaders and were destroyed. It's also full of examples of civilizations that surrendered and thrived. It's a hard pill to swallow that "cowardly" surrender can often be objectively better than "stubborn" bravery. One of the big facts of history that blew me away.

<comment><USER6> > It's a hard pill to swallow that "cowardly" surrender can often be > objectively better than "stubborn" bravery

One old saying around these parts of the world (Romania) can be translated roughly like this: "The bowed head doesn't get cut by the sword", which explains like at least half of our history, seeing as we've never been a major regional power while being surrounded by 3 empires for at least a couple of centuries (the Ottomans, the Russians, the Habsburgs) and we still managed to keep a certain level of autonomy throughout the centuries. The Poles were a little bit more courageous than us and that attitude saw their country split into three.

<comment><USER7> > The Poles were a little bit more courageous than us and that attitude saw > their country split into three.

This is very simplistic way to describe reasons behind partitioning of Poland, which was by then standards very large multiethnic country with borders from Baltic to Black Sea and ability to raise considerable military power to defend its borders in times of need.

Commonwealth's dissolution came from the inside. There was no centralization of power in Poland. King was de-facto figurehead with real power being divided between hundreds of nobles. Everybody else was professionalizing their military, but that was impossible to do in Poland because we were 18th century country that relied on King rallying nobles rallying their bannermen for military. There was no chain of command, grand strategy or even unified arsenal. That was ridiculous but nobles wanted it to stay that way so king or congress could never contest their power. What happened instead was country being partitioned and nobility getting the boot from new rulers that did not tolerate private kingdoms, private armies or having to negotiate with every single noble if they wanted to change something.

<comment><USER8> "having to negotiate with every single noble if they wanted to change something"

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Irony was a double-edged sword in this case. Sure, the Greek city-states were now subject to Rome. On the other hand, Roman civilization was deeply affected by Greek culture, which was arguably far superior. Horace said it best: _Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit_ (once defeated, Greece conquered its savage captor)

<comment><USER10> Similar statements (which I am not historian enough to judge the accuracy of) regarding the Chinese and the Mongols. The Mongols won militarily, and were turned into a culturally Chinese empire, in the east at least. Again, I am not historian enough to say if this is accurate, but it is a common assertion.

<comment><USER11> In the West (at least some of them, the future Mughals), they were Turkified, then Persianised, then Indianised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I highly recommend the podcast The History Of Rome, which talks about this conflict in some detail. I binged the almost 80 hours of it. I couldn't get enough! Then, I got sucked in to the podcast The Fall Of Rome, which is equally fantastic.

[http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/](http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/)

[https://fallofromepodcast.wordpress.com/](https://fallofromepodcast.wordpress.com/)

<comment><USER13> There is also "Normans" and "12 Byzantine Emperors".

<comment><USER12> Excellent! Adding those to my list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For an interesting coarse overview of this stuff, I've been reading _The Silk Roads: A New History of the World_ , by Peter Frankopan. It's a sprawling world history, from earliest recorded history to the present (I'm currently between WWI and WWII), based on the idea that the Orient (particularly the Eastern Mediterranean basin over to present-day India), not Europe, is the historic center of civilization. Northern/Western Europe was an impoverished, uninteresting backwater until the discovery of the New World (which precipitated a major economic shift, thanks to the tremendous gold reserves that Spain exploited, affecting world currency markets).

The author makes interesting arguments that the area is the center of civilization even in modernity. For example, he argues that the main cause of WWI was British fear of a resurgent Russia taking India from them - not German aggression, as is commonly understood by Eurocentric views of history.

At any rate, the book is full of epic, sweeping battles, the ebb and flow of great cities like Constantinople and Baghdad, the rise and fall of empires. Highly recommended if you like this stuff!

<comment><USER15> Northern Europe wasn't the impoverished, uninteresting backwater though. It had a rich culture that interacted with the Orient through Russian rivers. Central Africa did as well, and is another forgotten story, but at the time the Greeks invented democracy, the largest city of the time was thriving in central Africa, a city that wouldn't be out done population until after Augustus was long dead.

History is full of stuff like that. The key difference is that these regions didn't keep written track and have left only archeology, but in Europe most of that didn't keep because other people lived on it after wards.

The earliest written accounts about Northern Europe are Christian accounts that were written almost 400 years after the Vikings discovered America. While it's not incorrect to theorize that there is nothing because there was nothing, it's important to keep in mind that we still don't know how Stonehenge was build.

<comment><USER16> Which city in Central Africa?

<comment><USER17> They could be referring to Benin City

<comment><USER16> Benin City came about during the European Middle Ages though, no? They were referring to a city in ancient Greek times

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Invincible on flat ground as long as its flanks were protected, the phalanx > was dangerously exposed on hillsides. Highly manoeuvrable, veterans of the > Hannibalic war, the legionaries wreaked a terrible slaughter.

It's amazing how much terrain has affected the arc of history.

<comment><USER19> I've just finished McCann's 1491 and on to 1493, about pre- and post-Columbian Exchange, respectively. Something that stood out was the commentary on why Americans never invented the wheel (given they independently invented agriculture and government)... and the answer was exactly that; terrain. Plus lack of horses... when you have llamas instead, you build your empire's "roads" for walking, not for carriages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here's a view on the ever popular Legion vs Phalanx debate, written from the Greek side by someone alive during the war:

[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D31)

<comment><USER20> Here's part II

[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D32)

</comment></comment><comment> jake-low My public-school education (in the US) definitely never taught the subject. My history classes were divided into clearly-delineated "units" of study with no overlap. "First let's learn about Mesopotamia. Agriculture, Hammurabi, etc. Now recite what you learned on a test. Good, now we're moving on. Greece. City-states, marble statues, Olympics. Another test. Moving on. Rome..."

My "Earth Science" class was structured the same way. We learned about the formation of the solar system, then dinosaurs, then Cro-Magnon Man. Each unit of study was so completely separate from the others chronologically that it never occurred to me to ask "So did Greece and Rome ever have wars?" for the same reason it never did to ask "How did early homonids fight off dinosaurs?". It seemed so obvious at the time that there was no overlap.

Anyway, if I have a point, it's this: never underestimate the inadequacy of the US primary education system.

<comment><USER21> I normally try not to make low effort comments but this resonated so strongly with me I had to chime in with a "ME TOO."

I _LOVE_ history now. I collect antique history books, just to see how perceptions changed over time. Ken Burns tops hollywood in terms of "# of films watched" by many times over. However, this only started MUCH later in my life when I started to see history as a tool, a way of thinking, of reasoning about the world.

History as it was taught in my early schooling was not only useless, it was utterly counterproductive; As you say: memorizing slabs of rote dates and events not only removed any utility or holistic understanding from the facts (and related time periods), but convinced me that I "hated history" and should avoid the subject like the plague. Arrogantly, I was one of the better students in my high-school, so I can only imagine what the less advantaged crowd felt about those courses, and it doesn't leave me surprised with the "lack of historical context and appreciation" I feel to be pervasive in the American population.

To truncate this rant: History is _so fucking amazing_ when you start to consider it as an interplay of human pathologies, and as a tool for understanding our present. It's such a frustration that our education system doesn't do it justice.

<comment><USER22> Well... as a tenth-grader, say, I wasn't actually in a position to understand history the way I do now. Teaching me a bare-bones framework was perhaps the best they could do, which gave me a place to hang the detail that I learned later.

<comment><USER21> That's the sad part for me, there was 0 "Framework" learning. It was 100% rote memorization, usually for a standardized test. (As I've said in other threads, it wasn't until college that I really "Learned how to learn.")

A bare-bones framework, to my older eyes, would teach you to ask about incentives, to look at the zeitgeist of the times, to ask "what's the precedent," and might establish a motivation for this in showing the predictive power of history, or its utility in comprehending current situations. Unfortunately, all of those were long-post-primary-schooling revelations. While I may not have had the context or appreciation I do now, my schooling did almost nothing to move me in that direction.

<comment><USER22> That would be a framework for thinking about history, which isn't what I meant. I'm not sure I was ready for that in tenth grade. (I suppose it might have opened the door to some new thoughts, but I don't think I would really have gotten it.)

By "framework" I meant just the bare outlines of history: Egypt, the Fertile Crescent, then Greece, then Rome, then the Middle Ages, then the Renaissance, then the Industrial Revolution... Having that "outline" put me in a position, later, as I learned more, of seeing how the details fit into the (very coarse) outline, and thereby learning more outline.

What you're asking for is also totally necessary if one wants to understand history as more than just a collection of facts. And I suppose that even in grade school, history would make more sense if you told them that things happened for reasons, they didn't just happen. You'd have to really simplify the reasons, though...

<comment><USER23> I agree you need a bare-facts framework. But you also need to make it interesting, in part so the students will keep studying on their own.

Now that should be interesting, since history is full of so many things that human beings find fascinating. Unfortunately, the educators generally manage to make it boring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> We still use the term Phyrric Victory nearly 2300 years after the famous war that spawned the term.

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

</comment><comment><USER25> I live in Northern Greece/Macedonia and I can confirm that we were never taught history with this level of detail.

It seems so fascinating to me that if you focus hard enough to a simple sentence of a modern history book you can uncover battles and kings and strategies and winters and politics.

<comment><USER26> As a fellow Macedon, I concur. Ancient history was kind of glossed over, although I'm not sure if you can call three years of ancient history "glossing over". I guess there's just so much to cover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What's also interesting is how the Romans initially resisted incorporating Greece and the other Hellenistic kingdoms until they felt that they had to by the 140's BCE. Also, note that the Romans had no such compunctions on adding Spain to their holdings after the 2nd Punic War. (the massive amounts of silver in Iberia probably had a bit to do with it)

<comment><USER28> The Greeks were divided and unruly, a fact known for at least 2 centuries. I don't fault the Romans :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Anyone have any good articles/books on why Greece has never reached greatness or similar status to other EU powers since the middle ages? Especially given their influence on the enlightenment, mathematics, philosophy, and Roman culture itself - which spread throughout the western world.

I've always been curious why they have stagnated so much since and been so... mediocre.

I guess you could say the same about Macedonia and _maybe_ some middle eastern areas if we're looking purely at past greatness, but those two seem to be easier to explain. Greece's impact was more wider, longer, and stronger.

<comment><USER30> The answer is simple, and sad. We (I am Greek) missed out on the Renaissance and the Enlightenment because we were under the boot of the Ottoman empire for 400 years.

By the time we achieved freedom, we were a backwater too far behind everyone else in Europe to be competitive.

<comment><USER29> Interesting, I'm sure there's multiple causes but that could certainly contribute significantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> One problem with the topic of Roman and Greek history is that there is too much of it to cover in a single book. I am forever looking for a single volume book that covers all the way from the founding of Rome, to the republic years, to the birth of Christianity, to the dark ages, and eventually to the fall of Constantinople, with no luck.

Sometimes even amazed that events like the Eastern Roman empire repelled Goths from Italy, and even managed to occupy Rome proper, for a few brief years, took place.

</comment><comment><USER32> I feel like the juicy part of that article is in the last two paragraphs. Like how was the deal making done, what where the details that made the other city states submit to the Roman side. If it's really all content there is, then maybe a Tweet would have been enough.

</comment><comment><USER33> Surprised there's no mention of Pyrrhus of Epirus. He was a Greek, fighting Romans and winning (though obviously at heavy cost, hence the term). He was using the Phalanx system as well.

Hannibal rated him as up there with Alexander as one of the greatest generals ever.

</comment><comment><USER34> A nice short video on the subject [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7xTNzdN7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7xTNzdN7Q)

</comment><comment><USER35> How is this little known? If anything, this is _too known_. What I wish, but is impossible, is that there were more documented stories of the conflicts of e.g. Native Americans or Native South Americans, before European Settlers; early wars in Africa; or wars in the extremes of the Artic between early tribes. I have listened to all of Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" ( which any student of history will fall in love with ), and the only limitation is that he can only recount histories that are documented, which sadly doesn't extend to most pre-European-influence civilizations.

<comment><USER36> Ok, we've taken 'little-known' out of the title above, to satisfy those who know more than a little. But let's please switch to something other than the title now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Rome Vs Greece is little known well I never :-) I suspect Mr keen was not educated by the Cristian brothers.

And I am not so sure that the manipular style was ineffective in a straight fight. Rome abandoned the phalanx for a reason.

<comment><USER38> And later picked up the cohort under the Marian reforms for reasons as well, especially once the Gauls began hitting them with frontal charges again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't know about little-known.

<comment><USER40> Schools vary, but usually this conflict isn't really presented much in survey classes.

The highlights of education on Greece usually focus on Alexander the Great for a day or two, phalanx, the various figures of Athens, Athens vs. Sparta. Rome usually is some chat about the origin myth, "they were a republic", the Punic Wars, specifically Hannibal, Ceasar, transition to empire, random facts.

<comment><USER12> Probably a decent number of people learn about the conflict in passing at least when the fall of the Macedonian satrapies is discussed, as well as the final conquest of Sicily, what with Archimedes' death and all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> World War One, the little known conflict that had a bigger impact on Europe than you may think... Sure, never heard of ww1. And never heard of the Roman Empire and it's invasion of Greece, Egypt and Gaul.</comment>


How KArma should be measured - <AUTHOR>

23 AUG/11 11 How Karma Should Be Measured Measuring karma was a heavily-debated topic for a while on HackerNews. The goal is to provide some measurement that both accurately measures overall contribution to the community and encourages consistent engagement. Several solutions were discussed and a few were even tried. For example, pg tried to replace the overall karma score with an average score. All three combinations (total only, average only, and both) were juggled around in the top right corner, until eventually the simple total was used.
While all these attempts were good ideas, I think there is an even better metric that should be used here: the Sharpe ratio.
Risk adjusted returns When you look to invest in an asset, it's often important to consider the risk of an investment as well as the overall historical returns. Assuming you have no external knowledge of the asset, looking at the volatility of its returns is a pretty good estimate of risk. Ideally, you'd like to see super high returns with no volatility– just a steady stream of money rolling in day after day.1 <comment><USER2> I don't if you are talking about the same risk issue or not: for example, I submit a lot of links every day and 99% of them have 0 extra votes. This decreases my karma but I think those links are interesting for the HN community and I take the risk to post them.

It would be really difficult to quantify the risks: I am a bot or a human? are these links really interesting?</comment>


The Downsides of Being Your Own Boss - <AUTHOR> http://www.prettyyoungprofessional.com/work/downsides-of-being-your-own-boss.html

<comment><USER2> The downside of being my own boss? I can't fire myself and hire someone who I know would be more productive and competent.

</comment><comment><USER3> Love that this article tackled the downsides of being your own boss - so many articles focus on the positives (managing your own hours, etc) that it's nice to see a fresh perspective</comment>


Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth on shaking up system software - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17916879 <comment><USER2> What I find interesting is that I don't see other distros or projects picking up Ubuntu's and Canonical's novelties.

Upstart was adopted by a few distros, but then those distros left it for systemd.

Bazaar — Who uses Bazaar?

Ubuntu One — Last time I checked it supported Windows but, if you believe it, not Debian.

Ubuntu Software Centre — Debian Squeeze installs it as part of the default desktop setup. I opened it a couple of times when I first installed Squeeze and did not see anything that would make me use it, but I don't know if it is properly integrated into Debian.

Unity — Has any distro shown interest in shipping Unity as a Gnome shell?

So, what I am wondering is: If all these extras add value to Ubuntu, why aren't the other distros picking them up? They could add value to other distros too. And if they don't add value to Ubuntu, why do Ubuntu and Canonical spend resources on them?

<comment><USER3> This week I tried Ubuntu 11.10 on VMWare and absolutely hated it. Nothing makes sense in Unity! If you're going to make something different at least make it more efficient or more intuitive - it's neither. I ended up going with XFCE not from performance issues but because I was sick of having to use Google to figure out basic things.

I couldn't believe how I angry and frustrated I became. I'm usually not that invested in things like this, and tbh I really wanted to like it. If I'm representative of at least a fraction of the userbase then they should have a look at why people like me are reacting this way.

EDIT - I'm getting hammered with the downvotes so I'd genuinely like to hear why. I'm not trying to troll and I bring these things up because I want Ubuntu to succeed but I think they're missing something incredibly important right now in their approach.

<comment><USER4> I had the same reaction as you when I first tried Unity a while ago. But now I've come around to like it. It's actually really forward thinking.

Our perception of user interfaces is very much tied to habit - what we're used to. New interfaces take some time to adjust to.

I know some people who hated Hipmunk and the iPad because they couldn't figure out how to use them.

You should give Unity another try. You may still not like it, but if you're a programmer who likes to use the keyboard more than the mouse, you will at least like the HUD.

<comment><USER3> I totally agree with what you say about subjectivity. I actually liked the HUD but my overall feeling is that it all needs to be refined and I certainly wouldn't give it to my parents like I would an iPad.

<comment><USER5> Fwiw I set my mom up on 11.10 a few months ago. She was coming from OSX and immediately took to and came to love Ubuntu.

I think part of it is that with Unity, there are never overwhelming amounts of options on the screen. Once you understand that Super Key = Search for Application, that's pretty much all you need to know.

In the past, I think the "Start Menu" style application-chooser would have been overwhelming for her - I know it was sometimes for me. I'd click then start reading through the menus "Uhh, wait, what did I want? Where is that again?"

Even with the occasional Unity glitch (which doesn't seem to be an issue at all in 12.04) her system is still much more reliable than ever.

I was really impressed and excited to see that Linux was at the point where she could use it with very little coaching - so, worth considering that much at least.

<comment><USER6> Yes - super key is like the predecessor of saying "computer:" in Star Trek. That is nice. It is part of why tools like Gnome-Do, Launchy, Kupfer, Synapse (not to mention Vim plugins like Fuzzyfinder, Command-T and CtrlP) have taken off. It's like shell auto-completion except you kicked off the search before typing anything, and it is easy to set different contexts to guide the search.

And even if Unity is doing some things wrong, it is well worth refining this launcher concept. Flying up to a 'File' menu to (say) exit an application, or Edit to search a file, is about as stupid as dragging a floppy disk onto a garbage can. Harder to decide exactly what to do instead.

I'm also quite happy that FINALLY some GUI designers are putting elements like quick keys and fuzzy searching at the foundation rather than kludging them on to an interface which is fundamentally hostile to people who have specific actions in mind and/or know what they are doing.

For now, though, the devil is in the details...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really like Shuttleworth's / Ubuntu's courage - it's much like Apple's courage, except it is done in the open.

(Personally, I can't switch to 12.04; it borks on my touchscreen device, see <https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/801988> \- but I will as soon as the bug is resolved. The lenses/hud is excellent)

<comment><USER8> i also suggest not upgrading to 12.04 if you are a vim and konversation user. ain't working.

<comment><USER9> I don't understand how Vim can be broken on 12.04, some type of packaging error?

<comment><USER8> i don't either. on a clean ubuntu 12.04, this is what i get: <http://pastebin.com/W1X9pcew>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Have been with Debian for quite a while, but installed this new Ubuntu LTS the other day on a development box and have to say, I'm pretty impressed. Seemingly quite stable w/ plenty of nice UI eye-candy. Only criticism is that it hides a bit of the default customisation settings stuff from the last time I used Ubuntu (last LTS), however, it's definitely a nice push forward for the linux community (in so far as perhaps drumming up new open source users). Would have been nice to see a shout to Debian in the article, but hey, just glad open source is gaining broader appeal and hopefully, at the very least, it's a foot in door for greater linux adoption.

<comment><USER11> I think Debian/Ubuntu with Gnome 3 is a winner. I love the interface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I might be in the minority (or a really silent majority..) of people who absolutely love Unity. [1]

Just install ClassicMenu Indicator[2] to have a regular app menu around, and Ubuntu Tweak for a little more customisability, and you're good to go.

[1] (link to my blog) [http://shrik.theswamp.in/2012/05/switching-over-to- ubuntu-12...](http://shrik.theswamp.in/2012/05/switching-over-to- ubuntu-1204.html)

[2] <http://www.florian-diesch.de/software/classicmenu-indicator/>

</comment><comment><USER13> The HUD is one the most significant UI changes to hit the Linux Desktop in recent years, and I see how a lot of people will find it useful. But it's probably also going to be one of the most controversial changes, perhaps even more than the introduction of Unity (which has many more precedents).

In particular, it will be difficult to get even the most adventurous users to use complicated apps like GIMP (which the screenshot shows) exclusively with the HUD. When there are hundreds of functionalities you could choose from and you don't remember the exact name, the traditional menu is much more discoverable. At the moment, HUD only complements the menu without replacing it altogether. But if the HUD is some day going to replace the menu, it will probably need to incorporate some of the features of the traditional menu on the way. I hope Canonical remains responsive to feedback during the transition period. Shuttleworth has an unfortunate tendency to go all Steve Jobs and insist that it's either his way or highway when it comes to UI decisions.

It's also going to be interesting to see how HUD works in touchscreen devices where using the keyboard can be a significant amount of hassle. You could rely on gestures to some extent, but not all actions you perform on a computer can be easily represented with intuitive gestures. So Ubuntu's UI may need to split up again into desktop and tablet editions, after all.

As for myself, I feel rather frustrated with these changes because I love my little plastic rodent. I really don't like taking my hand off the mouse to type something.

<comment><USER14> In his initial announcement of the HUD (<http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/939>) Shuttleworth clearly had the discoverability issue in mind; the vision he put forward was that, with the HUD in place, the menu's main function is now to discover functionality; therefore, design effort should now go into a good replacement for that particular aspect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The money quote from that article:

"The patents system is being used to slow down a lot of healthy competition and that's a real problem. I think that the countries that have essentially figured that out and put hard limits on what you can patent will in fact do better."

</comment><comment><USER15> Whatever you think of HUD, Unity, Ubuntu TV, Ubuntu on Android you have to admire someone pursuing a vision.

</comment><comment><USER16> Ubuntu for Android handsets is what I am waiting for my next handsets. Still have no clue, which quad core android will support it.

</comment><comment><USER17> The only reason I'm giving Ubuntu a last chance is the version number. Pangolin may become usable... eventually.

I've tried running Eclipse in Unity, Gnome 2 & Gnome 3 on my heavier laptop. Things crash hard and often. I've given up for the next month and installed KDE.

Since 11.10, I've been switching my computers to Debian Squeeze. I do not regret it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like Unity's design just fine but it's VERY VERY power hungry. On my laptop it maxes out heat, takes a really excessively time to boot and takes a couple seconds for the UI to come up when I hit super. Tweaks like changing the graphics driver aren't helping. LXDE and XFCE desktops don't have the same problem at all.</comment>


California Dam Crisis Could Have Been Averted - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-dam-crisis-could-have-been-averted/#sa_body <comment><USER2> Climate change has little to do with this issue. CA has a history of infrastructure mismanagement (see HSR, Bay Bridge, etc). The CA Dept of Water Resources has a history of incompetence. Oroville Reservoir a history of problems.

This was a straightforward civil engineering failure. The flow of water that needed to be handled was known. It had been much higher in the past. The flow in the main spillway could be controlled by gates. There was an emergency overflow spillway.

They had plenty of time and resources to solve this problem but they didn't. We don't yet know exactly why but the design, construction, maintenance and/or operation was flawed. This is the responsibility of the operator of the dam which is ultimately the state.

I think tying everything to climate change can be counterproductive. Yes it can attract attention to an issue but it probably also distracts from less salient but perhaps more important issues in this case like keeping brush clear from the spillway or inspecting concrete structures.

We badly need better infrastructure management. And this will allow us to better respond to climate change.

/rant

<comment><USER3> Your rant is just a rant. Mentioning HSR is some kind of dogwhistle. In what way is HSR mismanaged and how is that related to this dam?

The events at Oroville have been exceptional and it's strains belief that you, Random Internet Guy, saw it all coming. The amount of water that has fallen in the Feather watershed this year is without precedent in recorded history. The spillway worked fine until a gaping hole appeared in it. Nobody foresaw that a massive sinkhole would destroy the main spillway.

<comment><USER4> Actually plenty of people foresaw a problem with this dam and multiple other dams in CA. I have a friend who worked on dams in CA 20 years ago who told me that they weren't getting the maintenance and upgrades they needed and it was only a matter of time before there was a failure. And he never even worked in this particular dam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The interesting thing here is the disconnect between local and national politics. Butte and Plumas counties went to court because the dam's operations did not properly account for climate change. But the two counties are represented in Congress by Doug LaMalfa, a stereotypical climate change denier. LaMalfa has vociferously complained about all climate change policies at the state and federal level and constantly publishes press releases questioning the facts of climate science. He has a lifetime 0% score from the League of Conservation Voters. He is, in short, the kind of dangerous know- nothing who is bringing about the end of civilization as we know it.

One does begin to wonder if his constituents perceive the disconnect. One major problem is that Butte and Plumas counties taken together do not constitute a majority of the district (Butte is about a quarter million people and Plumas is ten times smaller). Relatively well-educated and affluent Chico is completely buried under a huge, rural, and very poor 1st district, most of whom are not threatened by these particular waterways.

<comment><USER5> > the kind of dangerous know-nothing who is bringing about the end of > civilization as we know it

I'm totally on board with you with regards to climate change, but do you really need to simplify and insult opponents like this?

<comment><USER6> Which part of the phrase isn't accurate?

<comment><USER7> > bringing about the end of civilization as we know it

That's at _best_ hyperbolic. It's inflammatory and unhelpful in a rational discussion.

And to be clear, it's also inaccurate. Climate change will not cause the end of civilization as we know it, unless as we know it means "exactly as it exists right now", in which case twenty or thirty years from now would be the end of civilization _as we know it_ even with absolutely no climate change, just due to how technology and culture progresses.

<comment><USER3> If we just lean into climate change face-first, as Republicans demand, there will be widespread famine and displacement. Nobody alive today has seen famine on a large scale. Relatively food-rich countries are going to be mowing down hungry hordes at their borders with machine guns. When I say "end of civilization as we know it" I'm not kidding.

<comment><USER8> "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate." \- Paul Ehrlich, 1968

"perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future" \- Paul Ehrlich, 2009

"I do not think my language was too apocalyptic in The Population Bomb. My language would be even more apocalyptic today." \- Paul Ehrlich, 2015

The message remains constant, in spite of contrary evidence, but the mechanism of apocalypse changes over time.

When you're faced with contrary evidence, do you change your mind or double down?

Yes, climate change can cause significant problems. Yes, human civilization affects climate. However, adaptation with our ever-increasing scientific and technological capability appears most likely to maximize well-being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> <Insertname Infrastructure Crisis> Could Have Been Averted

Get really _really_ used to that headline in the US, because the way we're headed, everything from bridges to dams are going to be subject to that headline. We've neglected basic infrastructure in this country for so long, that people have grown up without realizing there's a problem in the first place.

<comment><USER10> I'm 24, and have grown up here. First time I really heard about it was Trump at his rallies.

<comment><USER11> For all of the hate that Trump gets (I personally think most of it is earned), he has touched on some really important issues that have been ignored for a long time. Infrastructure is one of those.

<comment><USER9> Then problem is not that he's 100% wrong, the problem is that when he's right it seems to be of the "Broken Clock" variety. When there is little rhyme or reason to the views he takes, he's bound to end up in a few positive places (such as today, condemning anti-Semitism).

The problem with Trump is that they're only positive in these highly isolated, episodic ways.

<comment><USER10> That sounds like a lazy way to dismiss a guy who maybe deserves more credit than he gets.

<comment><USER12> Trump is the only person I've ever seen make three contradictions in a single sentence.

The only thing consistent about the man is his inconsistency (and his love of Russia, apparently). He's the political version of how you can prove anything if you assume a logical contradiction.

Of _course_ he's touched on important issues. He has touched on all sides of virtually all issues. He wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure, increase military spending, leave Social Security and Medicare intact, cut taxes, and balance the budget. This sort of obvious insanity does not deserve praise.

<comment><USER10> I agree that a lot of what he says and does makes no sense. I was just showing disdain for the "broken clock" insult which is so easy to throw around.

<comment><USER12> I don't get it. Sure it's an easy thing to throw around, but any brief criticism is. Shouldn't your assessment be based on whether it's based on something of substance, not whether it's easy?

<comment><USER10> It's basically saying "I often disagree with this person, so when I agree with them I refuse to admit that they have some virtue and deserve credit for it - they are still broken and bound to be correct sometimes out of pure chance." You don't see how that's kind of pathetic?

<comment><USER12> No, because that's not how I interpret it at all. I already explained how I interpret it: since he takes virtually every position possible, even contradictory ones, without any apparent thought or reasoning, any positions which are good are that way purely by coincidence, and therefore aren't worth anything.

The proverbial broken clock isn't useless because you disagree with broken clocks and refuse to acknowledge when they're correct. They're useless because they have no actual connection to the information they purport to convey, so even when that information is correct, it's still useless.

If I make a random number generator that prints out values between 15,000 and 25,000, I will sometimes correctly predict the closing value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the day. That fact is not worth a damn, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I dug around a bit for materials related to the lawsuit. Found some:

[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/progr...](http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/docs/oroville_ferc2100/comments2010jan/buttecounty_exhibits_draftcert_0210.pdf)

The county complaint is written by the lawyer quoted by SciAm. It does talk about climate change impacting the operations of the dam, but that is about as detailed as it gets. It reads to me like the county was after funds from the California DWR more than it was looking forward to the spillway failing in an especially wet season.

</comment><comment><USER14> Every single problem in the world could have been averted. However, there is only so much time, money, and resources, so we have to chose what to prioritize. There are even entire fields of professionals that deal with this, such as engineers and politicians.

<comment><USER15> Exactly. Every time there's some high visibility issue with infrastructure, there are lots of magazine covers and stories about underinvestment.

Maybe we do underinvest on balance. And I have no doubt that there are indeed specific examples that, at least in retrospect, should have received more investment. But "infrastructure investment" is probably effectively a bottomless pit. We could probably spend 2x what we spend and events like this would still happen and we'd still have people saying we don't invest enough.

It's not all that different from software. Maybe there would be fewer bugs and security vulnerabilities if the industry spent twice as much effort on code reviews and testing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> CAPTAIN HINDSIGHT. The Hero of the modern age. With his trusty companions, Should-a, Could-a, Would-a.

But seriously, postmortem everything seems obvious.

</comment><comment><USER17> From what I can tell it appears to be difficult to get funding to address flooding concerns during a 7 year drought.

I'm a bit to the south of the dam, in Yuba City, and was evacuated last week. The levees aren't in great shape in this area, overall. Expect more excitement in the next few months.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is just all around bad planing maybe not accounting for the more rain they are getting, but also not building for all the snow in the mountains. I'm sorry but this is not a climate change issue as much as a bad plaining issue. The changing weather in California is just bring it to light. yes I know the article says that. I'm just saying that trying to control the weather and the effect we have on it is no excuse for this kind of neglect. And it so often is. "Well if we can just control how much rain falls out of the sky we wont have to worry about this." Man has come far but we are not there yet. Hay California you are men not gods start planing for the future your always babbling on about how important it is.

</comment><comment><USER19> Article: "Those images reveal a big mistake: failure to update infrastructure to defend against climate change."

'Instead of a cooling in the tropics, there will be a uniform warming of the ocean, which will push the Pacific jet stream farther north. As a result, "Canada does get quite a lot more rain," Ting notes, whereas "the whole state of California, for example, will be much drier."' \- [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/southwest- america...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/southwest-america- drying-climate/)

Climate Change Increases the Odds of Epic California Droughts - [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change- in...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-increases- the-odds-of-epic-california-droughts/)

'The short answer, experts say, is that the drought built up over several years (with help from hotter temperatures fueled in part by global warming) and it will take many more storms and almost assuredly more than a single winter—even one with a strong El Niño—to erase it.' \- [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-is- here-b...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-is-here-but- california-is-still-in-drought/)

'"Regardless of how much of this year's heat was man-made or natural in origin, 2014 serves as an important reminder that heat can seriously exacerbate drought events," wrote Williams in an email. "If temperatures continue rising, we should expect record-breaking drought years to become increasingly common."' \- [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-s- drou...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-s-drought-may- be-worst-in-a-millennium/)

I confined myself to quotes from Scientific American articles. Please by all means post articles about how California was likely to face more droughts _but_ it would also be hit by massive, massive rains that erase droughts in one year that we need to prepare for. (Which you'll note one of the articles above specifically calls out as something that will not happen.) I would request that you find me someone predicting that specifically for California, though, not just an article that generally says something about "more extreme events"; we can't really accuse people of failing to plan for those unless we can be specific about what's going to be extreme. "More droughts for California with no particular offsetting rain" is a valid local interpretation of "more extreme events worldwide".

It's a bit disingenuous to accuse people of ignoring the effects of climate change when "the effects of climate change" that people have been talking about for the past few years imply precisely that upgrading the spillway would have been a waste of money for a reservoir doomed to depletion and drought.</comment>


Facebook Overhauls Groups, A Social Solution To Create "A Pristine Graph" - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/06/facebook-groups/ <comment><USER2> I'm not buying the idea that a social graph has long term value. Relationships come and go. People die. People delete their Facebook accounts.

A social graph is just a digital incarnation of a yearbook. I don't recall yearbooks being valuable or useful...perhaps on a personal sentimental level.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

<comment><USER3> You're right that yearbooks are not terribly useful on a day-to-day basis since it's static. However, I think Facebook's value comes from the organic nature of the site. You can update and craft your social graph to how you see yourself interacting with different groups of people at a given point in time. Of course your social graph will morph over time -- Facebook will hopefully make that as frictionless as possible. Facebook is a history of yearbooks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It seems to me they could have supported lists better. I created a bunch of lists and try to make sure everyone is in the correct list, but most of my FB browsing is now through the iPhone app, which doesn't prompt me about this stuff. It always felt like they did just enough to have a decent implementation of it, but it never really got as integrated as it needed to be.

If it's a feature that isn't used as often as they hoped, it's likely because (a) their support for this feature is lacking, and (b) they haven't educated users about this feature.

Both of these points weren't surprising to me because I always believed that FB wants people to share as much about themselves to as many people as possible.

I think without Google Me, and perhaps frid.ge, they would never have reconsidered these concerns.

</comment><comment><USER5> Now i finally can have a social network with my real close friends again inside facebook. Even reminds me of real social life. Does this imply facebook is even more integrated in our lifes when we clearly define different circles of trust?

For my uses it just lacks albums to be perfect.

</comment><comment><USER6> Wait, so let me get this straight. Someone can add me to a group without my permission, and I suddenly start getting notifications about all the crap that goes on in that group? That sounds obnoxious even by facebook standards.

<comment><USER7> Think it needs to be a friend that adds you, and you can remove yourself and they can't re-add you.

The same friend could message you to death if they wanted to.

<comment><USER6> True, but they'd probably realise they were being annoying. I'm concerned that some of my less ... sophisticated friends might start adding me to every group they think is funny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a good move on their part, as it was a big reason why people didn't like Facebook, why I didn't like FB. I am still not getting an account, but one obstacle has been removed.

</comment><comment><USER9> Did this just destroy frid.ge?

<comment><USER10> IMHO frid.ge was always a bit questionable, I personally built a comparable product and quickly realized that there is a huge amount of momentum around getting people into a system that is pretty much devoid of people you know.

Groups (and Events) are two features that Facebook has left somewhat sidelined over other feed oriented features. If they can get the mojo right on Groups then whole classes of me-too features (like frid.ge) are somewhat suspect. The interesting question is can you have a group that's coworkers who aren't your Friends, thus digging into Yammer is a serious way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "He says that 95 percent of users on Facebook in tagged in a photo"

They're tagged in photos because of those stupid apps that tag a photo with a bunch of random people from your friends list. I hated those things. I was constantly going and untagging myself from them.

<comment><USER6> Really? I've never seen one of those apps.

(I'm tagged in a bunch of photos because I go places and reflect photons.)

<comment><USER12> It's usually apps along the lines of "Born in July!" and "Names Starting with S" and "All Sagittarius Chicas!" and the like.

<comment><USER6> Odd, I've never seen those. While some of my friends (bless their hearts) are not quite _au fait_ with the how-to-avoid-spamming-your-friends thing, I don't think any of 'em have ever added any apps quite that annoying.

Then again, I wasn't born in July, don't have a name starting with S, and am most definitely not a Saggitarius Chica, so maybe I'm just missing out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Has anyone seen new API features for these new groups? I want to write a script to pull members from old groups (already possible), and then add them to one of these new groups. They seem more useful, but I don't want to deal with adding 100+ people to the new group.

</comment><comment><USER7> Uh, yeah, so don't play around with this because everyone you add to a group gets notified, and it's kind of a pain to delete a group since you need to remove each person individually.

</comment><comment><USER14> may be this is 'the facebook' killer.</comment>