Gnome 3.10 Release Notes - <AUTHOR> https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.10/ <comment><USER2> People who are using GNOME 3: how is the experience for you? I personally switched to Xfce from GNOME 2 when GNOME 3 came out and I don't think I am going back, but it will be good to see how the experience has been, given the negativity that surrounds it.

<comment><USER3> The killer feature is extensions.gnome.org

After you spent some time customizing it, I cant use any other WM that does not bring in this ease of customization.

After that, the WM gets out of your way.

<comment><USER4> What sort of extensions do you get the most mileage out of? Browsing through them, I see a few that look neat (like the 'Drop Down Terminal' one), but many seem to be extensions that correct problems that GNOME introduces anyway (Workspace Indicator, Remove Accessibility, etc).

<comment><USER5> I'm not who you were asking, but I like Maximus and "Hide Top Bar". Maximum screen real estate for working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think I'll be switching from unity to this now. Unity just never did grow on me, even though I use Mac all day at work.

<comment><USER7> I want to like Unity, and I use and love my Mac, but for some reason it just doesn't seem to stick for me either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hm. Looks pretty nice; I'll be interested to see how it runs on my (rather old) desktop; the version of GNOME (I think 3.0) that came with Fedora (15, I think) ran terribly slowly. I can't seem to find any good info on the performance differences of Wayland and Xorg, though.

<comment><USER9> check this out [http://fooishbar.org/tell-me-about/wayland-on-raspberry- pi/](http://fooishbar.org/tell-me-about/wayland-on-raspberry-pi/)

<comment><USER8> Thanks! I had found a link to just the video, getting the context is much more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Which distribution is best suited to try out GNOME 3.10 in virtualbox ?

<comment> c-a There's a live image here you can give a shot: [http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/misc/promo- usb/gnome-3.10.iso](http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/misc/promo- usb/gnome-3.10.iso)

I think it's based on Fedora but I haven't tested it myself yet so I'm not sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why the hell does Gnome have a hard dependency on systemd? I shouldn't have to change my init system just because I want an updated DE.

<comment><USER12> Systemd is a critical part of the Linux userland, and is now the standard Linux init system.

If you opt to run Linux without systemd, expect various userland things to break.

<comment><USER13> The "Linux userland"? Really? I wasn't aware Android had a hard dependency on systemd.

I'm all for opinionated design, but I hope we don't end up with a "Linux userland" in the sense we have a GNU userland -- that would be going towards too tight coupling of things that really shouldn't be coupled at all.

<comment><USER12> Tight coupling is the whole point.

The Unix Philosophy is based on building well-factored parts that fit together with small, knowable interfaces (e.g., simple text protocols communicating over pipes or sockets). Yet, the success of Mac OS X as the only relevant Unix on the desktop goes to show that whole, well-integrated systems are much more valuable than well-factored parts.

GNU/Linux needs to become a whole, integrated system. A platform for applications, not a framework for parts. Systemd is an essential part of that vision.

In short, everybody needs to suck it up because this is how things are done in Linux now.

<comment><USER14> > the success of Mac OS X as the only relevant Unix on the desktop goes to > show that whole, well-integrated systems are much more valuable than well- > factored parts.

Certainly not as clearly as the success of Linux in the server world shows the opposite.

> Linux needs to become a whole, integrated system.

If the priority for Linux is to capture a bigger share of the dying desktop market at the expense of the server market, sure.

On the server side, the whole "framework for parts assembled _ad hoc_ by a recipe for a task" model is becoming _more_ , not _less_ viable.

<comment><USER12> > If the priority for Linux is to capture a bigger share of the dying desktop > market at the expense of the server market, sure.

RHEL's next release will come with systemd. The server market is not threatened by systemd, and the growth market in personal devices -- mobile -- will benefit from its power-management features.

> On the server side, the whole "framework for parts assembled ad hoc by a > recipe for a task" model is becoming more, not less viable.

systemd units are much easier to write than init scripts.

<comment><USER14> I perhaps wasn't sufficiently clear; my issue was with the sweeping generalities about what MacOS X supposedly proved in terms of Linux needing to become that kind of integrated OS rather than a framework assembled from parts, not the specific idea that broad generality was offered to support about systemd (I don't really have a strong opinion on systemd either way.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "New in GNOME 3.10: Select to copy is disabled (but we let you keep middle- click to paste)"

Thanks, GNOME3.

<comment><USER16> Did they release it with select to copy disabled? Can't find anything about it on the site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, designers want to maybe change something to do with text selection. However, no plans yet. Slashdot made a fuzz about nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It looks really nice! Im especially happy that the useless "chat services" integration in the top right corner is gone.

The thing that replaces it looks very nice and useful, sort of like the Control Center in iOS 7.

The thing that has made GNOME 3.x useable for me is the "Dash to Dock" extension, that makes the dash always visible on the left. This is useful for me because I like to always see it and use it to navigate my windows with the mouse. I dont much care that it wastes a bit of space, I dont like maximazied windows anyway.

</comment><comment><USER18> I use cinnamon, never tried wayland though, Gnome 3.10 looks great I'm giving it a try, I hope all the annoying things are gone now.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can I use it with my hiDPI monitor?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, support has been added as of 3.10. It is similar to what Mac OS does. People who do not want that can tweak it in tweak tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> GNOME Shell on Wayland has released before Canonical's Unity releases on Wayland (or whatever else they plan to release on, e.g. their own Mir etc.). Big win for the GNOME community against its detractors from Canonical.

<comment><USER16> You know, this is not a zero-sum game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It looks like Gnome has come a long way since the early 3.x releases.

I especially like the menu bar being used fully, not having that space wasted is a small detail that has a big impact. I will definitely be giving this a try.

</comment><comment><USER20> Most stunning thing about 3.10 looks like the new maps application based on OpenStreetMap. Now I really wish I have a Surface Pro 2 with GNOME running on it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Gnome3 and Unity drove me to dwm and I could not be happier

<comment><USER7> Gnome 2 + Xmonad was a pretty good combination for me, but I haven't used it in a while since I have a Mac at home and need to run Netbeans at work. (The Xinerama support in XMonad is highly unpleasant, too.)

<comment><USER13> What's wrong with xmonad's handling of xinerama? I seem to recall both awsome[a] and scrotwm[s] have decent handling of mulitscreens setups for drivers that doesn't support xrandr, or used twinview -- maybe I mis-remember what used to be my problem -- but these days xmonad works nicely for me, whenever I need more than one screen.

[a] [http://awesome.naquadah.org/](http://awesome.naquadah.org/) [s] [http://www.peereboom.us/scrotwm/html/scrotwm.html](http://www.peereboom.us/scrotwm/html/scrotwm.html)

<comment><USER7> It "works" fine, it's just completely unintuitive and user-hostile. Tried it for a week or two, even with the cheat sheet taped to my monitor I could not build an intuition for what it was going to do. I'm sure there's a reasonable- sounding explanation of how it worked (each monitor is a view of the stack- set, or some such thing) but trying to use it was intensely irritating and it never got better.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Discouraging People From Joining Your WiFi Network - <AUTHOR> http://blog.joemoreno.com/2011/06/discouraging-people-from-joining-your.html <comment><USER2> Tangentially related: a clever coffee shop / cafe that offered free wifi changed the name of its network every day, updating it to broadcast whatever their special was. You could not join without thinking (momentarily) about "Corn Chowder, $2" or "Chocolate Chip Cookies - buy one get one free, today only."

Yes, they had specials boards, but people ignore those. The network, on the other hand, was unavoidable. From what I understand, this tecnique was extraordinarily effective. Something about clicking on the name of the item triggered an expectation that you were going to get the item. As you sat there, drinking coffee and futzing on Facebook, you'd keep thinking about the special that part of you was now expecting.

I suspect the "free" wifi paid for itself very swiftly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to call my network "Disable Networking" so I could enjoy the confused look of visitors.

It's since been renamed to be an in joke between my fiance and myself, which is even more enjoyable.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure why I care if someone attempts to connect to my network and fails to because they don't know the password.

</comment><comment><USER5> One network name I've enjoyed seeing recently is of the form "DEA Mobile Surveillance Unit #8". I presume this is a good joke rather than a clueless Drug Enforcement team...

</comment><comment><USER6> Oddly idiotic blogspam, obviously no one cares if someone tries and fails to connect to their secured network, as if people just sat there guessing passwords anyway.

<comment><USER7> Strange, I can see the flag just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article says that most people don't shut off broadcasting the SSID on their router because it's too much hassle. Really? The option on mine took less than a minute to turn off. Then once I set up the machines I use, they connect automatically. Should someone want to use my wifi, I'd just give them the SSID and password. It's not that big a deal, and I have all the security I can get short of setting a hardwired VPN up. The risk of bad things being downloaded aside, why would you want someone tying up bandwidth and slowing your connection down? I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER9> When tethering with wifi through my phone, I use "viruses". But its still a constant stream of connection attempts from passer-bys.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just yesterday we had a rogue WAP show up in our building called Virus23. One of our developers was using his phone to broadcast that SSID and his Android tablet was connecting to it. He used that name for the same reason. It made us in IT a bit nervous till we figured out what it was.

</comment><comment><USER11> I used a similar strategy with a 5 day stay in a hospital that didn't have WiFi. I tethered my phone and made a protected network called "$10/day - go to room 515". I was actually expecting to get a few clients, but no one ever did visit me.

</comment><comment><USER12> It would be interesting to set '9.95 a minute' as the SSID and leaving the network open.

<comment><USER13> One of my neighbors used to have a (WPA-enabled) network with the SSID, "$10 internet call <phone number>"

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe I'm not understanding something but if it's secure anyway, why would it matter.

</comment><comment><USER15> Or just don't broadcast your ssid...

<comment><USER16> but that's an inconvenience - it is much easier to just select a network then have to type the name, call me lazy #imnotsayingimjustsaying

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If only we had cheap bandwidth and SSL by default it wouldn't matter...</comment>


Amazon Isn't the Only One Killing It with Cloud Computing - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/05/amazon-isnt-one-killing-cloud-computing/?mbid=social_fb <comment><USER2> DO rocks but it's missing one feature: curated images. I imagine a LAMP ninja is able to setup a server that has most security and performance tweaks cooked in. Make that an image and let devs copy it. I've had a few Droplets hacked b/c all I did is what DO wants clients to do: click, build from image, use. Obviously best practices were not followed. I am a dev, I don't have the time nor interest on becoming a web server expert as well.

B/c this missing piece I now moved into a different direction: static sites/apps hosted on S3 that haul the dynamic data from a parse.com account, and I even have Cloud Code on Parse for those little needs that must run server-side.</comment>


I Am The Guy Getting Screwed By The Affordable Care Act - <AUTHOR> http://kiddynamitesworld.com/horses-mouth-guy-getting-screwed-affordable-care-act/

<comment><USER2> This is a confusing article to read because the author never makes clear _why_ he is the guy getting screwed; what his particular circumstances are, how they are different from other groups of people who might be benefiting from ACA, and what other groups of people similar to him might be getting screwed as well. Without this context, I don't know what to take away from this article.

<comment><USER3> To be fair, it's not a stand-alone article but rather one in a series of posts. In an earlier one the author wrote "I'm in that tiny minority that already buys his own individual coverage and will lose access to doctors and hospitals I currently use. I'm in that tiny minority who won't have a hospital within 20 miles of his home."</comment></comment>


Why Drinks Taste Better When Sipped Through A Straw - <AUTHOR> http://www.finecooking.com/item/19119/why-straws-make-the-drink-better <comment><USER2> Apparent answer: aeration (mostly).

Also, sucking a straw forces you to drink in a way that maximizes exposure to your palate, somewhat the same way "pro" wine tasters drink wine.

If you have an hour or two free, get one of those little wine aerators and do the taste test. It's a night-and-day difference.

This also appears to be one of the topics addressed in Myrhvold's epic _Modernist Cuisine_.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps this relates to the experience I've heard some relate, finding that food tastes better when camping. There's more fresh air, more air movement, and perhaps deeper breathing from moving around more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Coke w/ ice tastes better w/o a straw and directly from the glass...

<comment><USER5> Maybe I'm weird (and I've been accused of that before), but I can't think of a single beverage that tastes better to me through a straw.

All cold drinks taste best (to me) direct from a glass (and, I mean one made of _glass_ ). Hot coffee, tea and cocoa taste best drunk directly from a ceramic mug. I can't think of any other hot drinks I've had recently, but I suspect I'd pick the ceramic mug for them also.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Though uncouth, I've noticed that eating with your mouth open has a similar effect.

</comment><comment><USER7> I find that all sodas from a plastic bottle are so much worse than a can, straw or not.

</comment><comment><USER8> _And that, in a nutshell, is why some things taste better through a straw._

It doesn't explain why some things don't taste better through a straw like ice tea or beer.

<comment><USER9> > It doesn't explain why some things don't taste better through a straw like > ice tea or beer.

I wonder if it's partly cultural - in Guilin, China there's a place called Jack Coffee that sells coffee in a covered plastic cup that you drink through a straw. At first I was turned off by the idea, but after a few days I came to enjoy it.

I'm in Vietnam now, and my first night I met an old friend. He ordered a beer, put two ice cubes in the glass, and poured the beer over the ice. I said, "Beer on ice...?" He said, "Hmm?" Me: "You've got ice in the glass. And you pour the beer on the ice." He says, "Oh, yeah, I didn't get it at first, but now I'm converted."

So I wonder how much it's cultural - also, it seems like a lot of things that aren't drank from a straw like tea, coffee, wine are generally more high status/high fashion type signifier than something like milk or soda.

<comment><USER10> It should be noted that the beer was probably heineken or some variant. I reacted the same way the first time I saw it, but it turns out that particular brand on rocks makes a refreshing, frothy and very tasty drink to sip on in hot weather as long as you don't let it sit. I don't even like heineken that much, but paired with a glass of cubed ice it's now replaced corona et al as my hot climate beer.

<comment><USER11> umm, they do that because they do not have refrigerators. and people probably shouldn't be drinking stuff with ice if they are sensitive to waterborne bacterias...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> OK, that's part of the answer: now why do some other drinks (beer and wine spring to mind) taste worse through a straw?

<comment><USER13> The same reason that beer tastes bad from a can--you don't get the smell.

<comment><USER14> I beg to differ. Beer tastes better from a glass bottle than from a can. The smell doesn't account for everything there.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps the can smells bad, and the glass bottle smells neutral.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why we're doing "intra-planetary" node discovery at NuCypher - <AUTHOR> https://blog.nucypher.com/why-were-rolling-our-own-intra-planetary-node-discovery-at-nucypher-beeb53018b0 <comment><AUTHOR> Interested in whether or not other projects are coming to similar conclusions. I notice that golem has a lot of similar logic:

[https://github.com/golemfactory/golem/blob/develop/golem/net...](https://github.com/golemfactory/golem/blob/develop/golem/network/p2p/p2pservice.py)

Are we all totally crazy for wanting to do our own node discovery?</comment>


The Huff ["How to lie with statistics"] - <AUTHOR> http://www.badscience.net/?p=605

<comment><USER2> It always bothers me when I see statistics in the news that don't point to their sources. Especially since the most outrageous ones (such as the one quoted in the article) are the ones that tend to get blown up and carried by other news outlets. This has a tendency to promote the poorly researched stories (since they are the ones more likely to come up with preposterous claims based on bad statistics) and noone seems to care much that the underlying assumptions are shaky at best. I see countless examples of this every week.

Some major news outlets should start doing a bit more research on their stories, and maybe hire a statistician.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like an opportunity for <http://dbpedia.org>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there anyone reading this who has _not_ read The Huff? You should!

And do not miss the link at the bottom of the parent article. Darrell Huff sounds like a fun guy. I may have to dig out his other books.</comment>


Nest Acquires Home Automation Hub Revolv, but Will Stop Selling It - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/10/24/nest-acquires-home-automation-hub-revolv-but-will-stop-selling-it/ <comment><USER2> I really like Nest's products. They also own DropCam which makes good if a little overpriced IP cams.

One big disappointment was that when Nest purchased DropCam they shelved Dropcam's then up-coming "Tabs" which were security sensors which communicated to a DropCam and you could receive alerts via their hub[0].

Honestly in the rush to home automation it really feels like security has been ignored. Traditional security companies charge too much and their products are antiquated ($30/month subscriptions anyone?).

A lot of people aren't comfortable with IP cams in their home for obvious reasons. They would be more comfortable with motion sensors which connect into a hub and allow you to receive push notifications when they're triggered on a schedule.

I know for an elderly relative I wanted that exact setup. She was uncomfortable with an IP camera in her home (which is reasonable) so I was looking for a single motion sensor which would send me alerts so the same thing could be accomplished without invading privacy.

Home security is ripe for disruption.

[0] [http://blog.dropcam.com/look-whats-next/](http://blog.dropcam.com/look- whats-next/)

<comment><USER3> I looked into this, and ended up signing up for ADT.

As a software engineer, residential security systems bug the hell out of me. Almost all of them are susceptible to someone coming up to your house and snipping the phone and network cables before entering. That's right, these systems do nothing if the connection is cut. There is no keep-alive. Apparently, phone lines disconnect so much that if the security company called the police every time it happened, there would be a lot more false positives than actual emergencies. ADT does have a product that helps with this: they use wired phone lines as well as cellular lines for communication. This setup is harder to disrupt.

Moreover, almost all security systems are susceptible to a very simple attack: run into the house and find the wiring panel. Then smash it. There, now no call will be made to the monitoring station. Most "new" internet connected panels suffer from this because they integrate the key pad and the central unit into one easily smashable device that is typically installed right by the entrance.

Also, I actually get a discount on my homeowner's insurance by having burglary and fire protection installed. If I do this myself, no matter how clever, the insurance company won't see it as a real system.

Realistically, if someone wants to get into your house, and grab something or hurt you, they will. No security system you can afford will prevent that. What you really want is a big fat ADT (or whatever) sign in your front yard, so that the lowest level burglars simply move on. Fire protection is a whole other game and at least to me is very important: I want to protect my possessions, but even more importantly my pets.

<comment><USER4> Surprised you went with ADT. [http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-home- security-system/](http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-home-security-system/)

<comment><USER3> I looked at it, and FrontPoint would have cost me more up front and been $2-3 more per month. Yes, they have a better system, but as long as the smoke detectors are monitored, I am happy. Having said that, no reason not to go with someone better. I just happened to already have parts of the system in the house I had moved into.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A number of Revolv's electrical engineers were not part of the acquisition, and didn't receive job offers to migrate with the team Google/Nest. _(I assumed because Google planned on shutting down the project and most of their production is done in Asia)_

However if anyone is interesting in hiring a wicked-smart _(former)_ Revolv electrical engineer/hardware engineer who also has software engineer experience, let me know. They will be relocating to Bay Area anyway - my email is in the last line of my profile.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's an acqui-hire; they want to build the most talented team so that they can develop the best smart-home devices. They're going head-to-head against Apple, but with a very different strategy. Apple is trying to build the best mobile devices and the best SDK to create a huge market and a great dev environment for developers to build devices for HomeKit. Google's strategy seems to be to build their own great smart home devices.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's interesting to see Google preserve the Nest name for these business dealings. Tells me they're very aware of the potential concern consumers are likely to have inviting omniscience into their homes.

<comment><USER8> As I understand it, it isn't just the branding. Nest is still operating as an independent entity that happens to be wholly owned by Google, not as a division within Google's management structure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nest? you mean Google?

<comment><AUTHOR> Google yes, but Nest is the acquirer technically. Same with the Dropcam acquisition

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a revolv owner, I was really pleased with the app, the hardware, and the functionality. This actually makes me a bit sad as 3 of the 7 or so radios in the Revolv hub weren't enabled, but were promise to be enabled later down the road with a software update.

This basically means I might as well go back to my ISY-99i Pro with a bunch of python glue code. _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER11> soooo, nest still wants the thermostat itself to be the hub. a power constrained, proprietary hub with wifi and thread (when it is actually released). Rather bizarre in my mind.

There seems to be a hub phobia. I'm not saying it makes tons of sense to have multiple little servers for every device but I look at things like my kitchen and wonder, which heating hub I would choose. my microwave, oven, toaster, etc.

If there is going to be some kind of singular hub (which would be great) it needs to run apps and have expansion capabilities for the radios. A nest will not cut it. Also, without nest having thread enabled, the only way for things to talk is over wifi (nest <-> api.nest.com) and http. not bad for consistency but it sure would be nice to have all of the communication stay in the local network.

On another note, my San Fran apartment doesn't have a thermostat....</comment>


Ask HN: Uber's Cash in Hand Position - <AUTHOR> Seems to be around 13B, so at a net loss on 1.2B with no new cash infusion, they could still keep losing the same amount of money for a bit under 3 years and stay solvent.<p>Is this typical of a company going IPO to raise such a large amount or is the CFO and financial team there setting up what in startup terms would be considered a long runway On purpose. <comment><USER2> Are you looking at Q2 results NI (1,162,XXX,XXX)? If so, you shouldn't be. NI includes multiple book transactions that do not necessarily have a cash impact (depreciation / amortization, expense accruals, goodwill, etc). You'd be better served to look at their STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why only 3 years? 13 / 1.2 is about 10.

<comment><USER4> he's talking about the quarter loss

<comment><USER3> Ahh! Thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is this a better model for freemium games? Has it been used already? - <AUTHOR> The idea is to have freemium games that are completely free as long as you maintain a streak of passing at least one level per day.
When your streak ends, you would lose progress (e.g., a passed level becomes "unpassed" for each day that you don't pass a level).
You would only pay to avoid having to replay "unpassed" levels.
Do you think this model would be successful? Has it already been used in some game(s)? <comment><USER2> I've never seen it before, to be honest though I don't see this being a successful model. The people not playing every day are already those who are not really hooked on your game, I think most people that come back to a game after "unpassing", would probably just quit the game entirely, and anyone who shells out for the levels they already beat will probably feel resentful.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if it's been used. But not only would you not make money from your most motivated players, you'd be pushing away players who have shown some interest and that you want to encourage.

<comment><AUTHOR> But maybe you would get better word of mouth from the most motivated players?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have seen a similar mechanic in a game called [1] "Smash Hit". The free version would basically just disable saving. Once you paid a few dollars for the premium version, you could save your progress. I liked the model.

Having streaks might stress-out and frustrate the users...

[1] [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mediocre.s...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mediocre.smashhit)

<comment><USER5> Great game! Recently tried it again after some years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Temporarily unlocking content we've been charging once for unlimited access to sounds surprisingly ethical, said an EA spokesperson.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is gamehag ok? They've been giving steam games as long as you maintain some little task for them.

</comment><comment><USER8> This idea is amazing - exchange attention for saving cash.</comment>


Marine Electric: A Wreck That Changed the Coast Guard - <AUTHOR> https://www.maritime-executive.com/features/marine-electric-the-wreck-that-changed-the-coast-guard-forever <comment><USER2> The Wikipedia page[1] has a more detailed analysis of the regulatory situation that HN is probably most interested in:

"But Coast Guard investigations, and independent examinations of the wreck, told a different story: the Marine Electric left port in an un-seaworthy condition, with gaping holes in its deck plating and hatch covers. The hatch covers, in particular, posed a problem, since without them the cargo hold could fill with water in the storm and drag the ship under. And it was there that the investigation took a second, dramatic turn.

Investigators discovered that much of the paperwork supporting MTL's declarations that the Marine Electric was seaworthy was faked. Inspection records showed inspections of the hatch covers during periods where they'd in fact been removed from the ship for maintenance; inspections were recorded during periods of time when the ship wasn't even in port. A representative of the hatch covers' manufacturer warned MTL in 1982 that their condition posed a threat to the ship's seaworthiness. But inspectors never tested them. And yet, the Marine Electric was repeatedly certified as seaworthy.

Part of the problem was that the Coast Guard delegated some of its inspection authority to the American Bureau of Shipping. The ABS is a private, non-profit agency that developed rules, standards and guidelines for ship's hulls. In the wake of the Marine Electric tragedy, questions were raised about how successfully the ABS was exercising the inspection authority delegated to it, as well as about whether the Coast Guard even had the authority to delegate that role. Also there was a conflict of interest in that the inspection fees paid to the ABS were paid by the ship owners. "

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

<comment><USER3> Good example of a case where conflict of interest got people killed. ABS was paid to certify ships and that is what they did.

<comment><USER4> What gets me is how often these conflicts of interest go sideways.

I'll give you another one, in the UK there is a panel of civil servants who get to decide if another civil servant would be entering a conflict of interest by working for an organisation he/she used to oversee.

I.e. a civil servant in the ministry of defense retiring and going to work as a non-executive director for British Aerospace.

Of 450+ decisions they made, 0 where considered a conflict of interest.

If you ask the other wolves if the first wolf did anything wrong by attacking the sheep you can't be surprised by the answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This story brings to mind the propublica article submitted to HN a week ago on the USS Fitzgerald[0]. At what point does a ship's captain refuse to put to sea because his vessel is unseaworthy? Does it happen frequently and these are just exceptions, or is it the norm to follow orders and damn the consquences?

A former USN sailor I know says it was the norm (in his experience), but I know of an infantry company commander in the Army who was replaced mid-tour because he stopped taking his company out on pointless "movement to contact" missions. Different jobs, but same principle — safety of one's team.

0: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19094762](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19094762)

</comment><comment><USER6> Looking at map of Virginia.

Awesome fractal: Mobjack Bay!

<comment><USER7> It's true, well done planet. [google maps view]([https://email@example.com,-7...](https://email@example.com,-76.4056107,12z))

<comment><USER8> It had some help, I propose we name it Slartibartfast: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_impact_crater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_Bay_impact_crater)</comment></comment></comment>


Google CEO Sundar Pichai warns employees: Don't get too political - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-warns-employees-not-to-get-too-political-2018-9 <comment><USER2> It seems to be okay for google to get political, lobbying politicians and writing them cheques in the premise of getting backhand favours.

<comment><USER3> .. Which is accepted practice for companies in general. But why?

<comment><USER4> Because the Supreme Court decided that the legal fiction that corporations are people extends giving them free speech rights. Tellingly, money counts as speech in America.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Google is showing the hands of private government. How authoritarian will Americans let their employers become?

<comment><USER4> Most Americans would find a job loss to be a total financial disaster. This gives employers the ability to be as authoritarian as they want, more or less. Toe the line or be out of a job (and lose health insurance, possibly risk homelessness, etc.) is a powerful coercive mechanism. In many states, people can be fired for political activity outside of work.

<comment><USER5> Chomsky points this out in this [1] interview.

>Incidentally, there's an interesting book that just came out finally, says some of the obvious things about this, by a woman named Elizabeth Anderson. She's a philosopher and an economist. It's called Private Government or some name like that, but her point is that, which is a major point, yes, there is a government, but governments can be repressive. But most of our lives are under private government, which she says are indistinguishable from communist dictatorships.

>Any business, for example. If you subject yourself to it, you become essentially a slave of the institution with no rights, give away your liberty, and so on.

>....And when the Industrial Revolution came along, everything changed. You could only survive by being subordinate to a major corporate structure, and wage labor became the norm.

[1] [https://taibbi.substack.com/p/preface-an-interview-with- noam...](https://taibbi.substack.com/p/preface-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky- the-fairway)

<comment><USER4> Specifically, the concept of being so beholden to an employer as to be essentially forced to obey their (nearly) every whim is called "wage slavery"[0]. While it's not nearly as bad as the days of the "company town," [1], when workers could be paid in company scrip good only at company stores[2], while renting company living quarters, more people are wage slaves today than will admit it, and they get angry when you suggest they are!

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

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

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

<comment><USER6> Aren't some of these mega corps contemplating building their own employee cities? We could see people forced to re-learn just what a company town implies, and all out of a drive to centralize in SV and lower housing costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If a Google employee changes the search algorithm without the knowledge of his manager, how would we ever know?

<comment><USER8> I don't think that you can do that without attracting the attention of other programmers:

\- You have to ask for a review.

\- Even if you find a like-minded programmer, most key parts of the code are flagged by senior programmers who get alerted where there is a significant change.

\- Assuming this goes through, any significant change in which websites get listed, clicked on, etc. will be flagged by an anomaly-detection tool.

Changing anything impactful requires to pass through a lot of internal radars, certainly far more sensitive, informed and exhaustive than anything external.

<comment><USER7> Do you think that this is enough to convince a hostile sceptic?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So this article is being blown out of proportion. Pichai's letter is just saying that Google employees should act in a professional manner, not that they shouldn't have political views or be involved in politics.

</comment><comment><USER10> > "The trust our users place in us is our greatest asset and we must always > protect it. If any Googler ever undermines that trust, we will hold them > accountable."

I'd always assume the server farm to handle my search request would be stateless. Whom in Google should Sundar hold accountable if that's not the case?

</comment><comment><USER11> Finger wagging Google's super smart employees is unlikely to work out well.</comment>


Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-2016-half-the-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-perished/558302/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Corals are fascinating creatures and incredible symbiots. Vulcan (where I work) has been contributing to the advancement of science to save reefs. We've funded Ruth Gates and Madeleine VanOppen's work in human-assisted evolution of corals, among other projects.

I recommend everyone watch "Chasing Corals" on Netflix if they want a more detailed explanation of problems and potential solutions. Trailer: [https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE](https://youtu.be/Mmqqi_DnPEE)

<comment><USER3> Any suggestions for the best place to donate to have the most impact?

<comment><USER4> I mean, the coral are dying because the ocean temperature has gotten too high. Donate to yourself and stop using fossil fuels, that's the only way out at this point.

<comment><USER3> First of all, it's clearly not the only way out, because the comment I replied to shows at least another way worth exploring.

Second of all, me reducing my fossil fuel usage to 0 wouldn't magically drop industrial fossil fuel usage to 0, so that's not even a solution to the problem.

A new technology or enforced policy would have a much greater effect.

<comment><USER5> > A new technology

This attitude in the general public is our death knell. The only, and I do mean ONLY, solution to not fucking up the environment beyond repair is the concept of less.

Less SUVs, less air travel, less fast fashion, less computer monitors, less phones replaced less quickly, less heating and cooling of our homes and more getting acclimated to the climate, less fucking juiceros and interent connected butt-plugs, less non-seasonal vegetables and meat, less eating of beef and pork and chicken and more plants. Reduce.

I love to quote idlewords on this all the time, but we as a species can't even handle male pattern baldness. To somehow expect that we can engineer our way out of the complexities of nature with time to spare and without any impacts on how we live life in the wes is a completely misguided belief. The technological breakthrough that will be our saviour is not just around the corner. Musk and Tesla aren't our saviours. 'Less' is.

<comment><USER6> According to a meta study on personal greenhouse impact the biggest "less" thing a person can do is to not have too many children. To their data a single child represent yearly the cost in CO2e as is saved by 20 people not driving, 40 less air trips, or about 100 people eating a purely vegetarian diet for the same time period. ([http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541))

If we want less we need to understand the order of magnitude that the different forms of less have.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for those numbers. I'm a card-carrying /r/childfree member.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ive been to Airlie / port Douglas every couple years for a decade, it's unbelievable how incredible the place was and how it just isn't now.

First couple times was exactly like Finding Nemo, now it's a barren wasteland (and this is going to spots that are supposed to be better). Beaches in QLD still best in the world if you're visiting, give the diving a pass or manage expectations unless you're quite south

<comment><USER8> Barren wasteland is a bit far fetched, not sure which sites you are visiting off Port/Airlie but most of the tourist operator sites are still in fairly good shape, except maybe low Isles i.e. not pristine but they remain some of the best in the world and worth a visit. Lots of endemic species/corals etc. Which isn't to say there isn't a problem, the reports are correct, the signs are there, and repeats of the bleaching events of the past few years will definitely lead to the wasteland you describe (as seen in areas of the gbr and many of the other Pacific and american reefs). The original numbers were 90% of the reef had died, what this actually meant was that of all the sites surveyed 90% showed some sign of bleaching - which basically means stress due to heat exposure. The death bit comes later when the coral doesn't have time to rejuvinate.

<comment><USER7> And that's the thing maybe it's great comparative to the rest of the world, but not itself. Was with tour operators in 2015 so youd think it was the good spots, going again in a month so hopefully looking ok.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I always wanted to see this Great Barrier Reef since I was a small child, now it looks like there might not be any of it left by the time I get there. Is it even worth it at this point, or should I just look at pictures and imagine what once was?

<comment><USER10> you should go. It's not all gone yet.

<comment><USER11> Yes, fly there, pump more CO2 into the air thereby increasing ocean acidification to escalate coral bleaching.

<comment><USER6> I don't know. If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the corals then less people will work to fix it. It is also rather well established that conservation must focus on awareness or things don't usually improve by them self. Comparing the drawback to the benefits of tourism, I suspect the benefits win.

<comment><USER12> >If there is no money that get infused into the local environment around the corals then less people will work to fix it.

The ocean has warmed to the point where to coral cannot survive. The reef is H-U-G-E (1,400 miles long according to the article). If there was a technology capable of reducing the ocean temperature around the reef, the waste heat the technology would create would cause more problems elsewhere.

The reef is an indication that the global warming problem has become to big for human technology to fix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any way to farm coral in more temperate waters? Reef fish are very valuable so it could even be commercially viable.

<comment><USER14> Is a extremely complex ecosystem. Yes, you can grow coral in captivity. Some species are much more difficult to keep alive than other, but can be done. Is done since years in aquariums. The problem is that this not the same as cloning a entire ecosystem with a net of 10.000 species living together.

You can't do it in the sea otherwise, because there is not a lot of accurate and still free areas. Coral needs a lot of light. Must be shallow. Pirate and lawful fishing, commercial sea routes, tourism (coral reef attracts big predators like sharks), and a net of vested interests will block it.

And you'll need to wait 3000 years to have a coral reef at '3000 years level', of course. Corals are terribly slow and fight with their neighbors all the time. Such project would be extremely expensive.

<comment><USER8> There's already projects doing this. Both on the GBR and in places like Florida in the USA. The coral being grown is mainly staghorn due to its rapid growth cycles with the idea that it can help replenish high value sites only, i.e. not the whole reef. These kind of measures are seen as being part of a spectrum of solutions. Check out the Reef Restoration Project: [https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral-nurseries](https://citizensgbr.org/c/coral- nurseries)

<comment><USER14> A staghorn-only reef is "equivalent" to a monoculture forest. Staghorn is the "Eucalyptus" of corals. Much faster than most species. Will overgrowth and overshadow more delicate species that rely in potent poisons and good niches to survive and grow much slower.

Staghorn could make a good skeleton of a reef in, dunno, maybe 50 or 100 years and would attract a wonderful biodiversity if left alone; but is not enough in reef terms. we are talking of the cream of the cream. One of the finest works of this planet. The staghorn ecosystem is just a baby and a lot of species would be sorely missing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> People interested in joining a movement that engages with climate change and the future of the reef (through circular economy principles) should check out Citizens: [https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB](https://citizensgbr.org/s/39cB)

</comment><comment><USER15> what have we done to this world :(

<comment><USER16> We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability.

I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.

<comment><USER17> > We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability

No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider.

Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it.

Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value.

There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to

\- low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save)

\- a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets)

\- "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f __* because it 's not theirs'" \- see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue:

Audio: [https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism](https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism)

PDF: [https://mises- media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...](https://mises- media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I reccomend this BBC radio program for an up to date discussion on the state of the Great Barrier Reef [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09snj90)

</comment><comment><USER19> Australia says it's not dying tho, and "is healthy": [https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great- bar...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-12-great-barrier-reef- dying-australia.amp)

<comment><USER20> Hey, an AMP link in the wild.

<comment><USER19> I'm a simple man: google gives me links, I copy them over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> x

<comment> cup-of-tea It turns out cutting is one of the hardest things for people to do. Just look at how many obese people there are who cannot reduce their intake despite the immediate inconvenience and discomfort of being fat, not to mention the risk to their health. If so many can't even do it for themselves or their children, there's not much hope of them doing it for others.

It also leaves me utterly convinced that nobody really believes in god or an afterlife. People constantly demonstrate that the only thing that matters to them is that today is at least as convenient as yesterday.

No change will ever happen from the bottom up. And while our "leaders" continue to be people with already massively inflated lifestyles, nothing will happen from the top down either.

<comment><USER22> IMO main the problems are poverty and old traditions (e.g. animal products) and general confusion of priorities.

The bad media sells the latest news or problem as the most important news or problem.

People elect or at least accept the politicians. People pay for or at least accept the bad greedy business practices of small and big companies in the name of holy competition and individual struggle for life.

Too many people have faith that god (notably in the USA) and the traditional conservative political parties do what should be done.

There is a lack of motivation and desire for life changing real science and technology as national priority to end poverty, to bring wealth to all, to prolong life (anti-aging) and to protect nature including coral reefs. Science and technology would allow people to eat all they want and do no sports and still look like models and be perfectly healthy.

Cutting and austerity is not a strategy and not a replacement of urgent progress of science and technology.

Cutting and austerity is an unfortunate tactic because of lack of science and technology.

<comment> cup-of-tea But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen. There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles without fossil fuels. In addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.

<comment><USER22> > But you're dreaming of technology that may never happen.

IMO automation, genetic engineering, implants and replacement of natural body parts by artificial body parts will start social, economic and medical revolutions within the next decade.

One of the worst misbeliefs is that the end of poverty (at least world hunger) and the end of large-scale wars (e.g. Middle East) is just futurist idiocy while it is actually achievable within a year with existing technology. But political priorities prevent it.

Anyway, my point is that effort is required to advance science and technology. To call it a dream and to do nothing to realize it is the wrong way. It only wastes time because the efforts and investments must be made anyway (by future generations).

> There is no way at the moment that we can sustain our current lifestyles > without fossil fuels.

True. But again: There was and is not enough effort to create the technological alternatives. Besides, a lot of energy (and burned forests) could be saved by simply not eating animal products any more.

> In addition, if we remain unsustainable then we'll just grow to fill the > next level unsustainability if a new technology did come along.

Humanity is always at the frontier of sustainability or possibilities for one reason or another. Science and technology lead to creation of resources (e.g. use of steel, use of fossil fuel, use of Uranium, use of solar power) and more efficient use of resources like e.g. man power (e.g. by better program languages, better programs, better computers, better cars, better houses) and less religious societies and less wars and lower birth rates.

<comment><USER23> "Science and technology lead to creation of resources..."

No, they lead to finding and digging up of resources.

"and more efficient use of resources"

Efficiency doesn't make anything better, it just increases the amount of the resources that we create--oops---use.

"and less religious societies and less wars"

Okay, it's clear you have a story in your mind that ultimately leads to jetpacks among the stars.

"and lower birth rates." This doesn't mean much. We went from 3.5 to 7.5 billion in 45 years. We had plenty of science and technology during that time, all doing their thing with the uranium and the fossil fuel and the steel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is sad news.

Will this encourage Australians to contribute their fair share in the fight against climate change?

CO2 emissions (tons) per capita in 2016

Canada: 18.62 Australia: 17.22 USA: 15.56 Japan: 9.68 Netherlands: 9.61 Germany: 9.47 New Zealand: 7.14 UK: 5.59 Sweden: 4.54

[http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2...](http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&dst=CO2pc&sort=des9)

</comment><comment><USER20> This article is strikes a rather alarmist tone which isn't warranted. This reef has been around in some form for 2M years and has experienced average global temperatures about 10 degrees colder and warmer. Reefs in the Arabian/Persian Gulf survive seawater temperatures about 8 degrees warmer than this one.

If the heat is killing them, they just need time to adapt.

 _" I think we are now getting to this idea that actually, in some cases, these mechanism can arise very quickly, within a few years."_ ([https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water- corals-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-water-corals-in- the-persian-gulf-could-help-save-the-world-s-reefs/))</comment>


South Atlantic Anomaly - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly <comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because I just watched a documentary about the earth's core on the BBC and the stuff about the implications of the south-Atlantic anomaly fascinated me.

It's a few years old but worth a watch if you have an hour to spare:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148vph/horizon-201120...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0148vph/horizon-20112012-4-the- core)</comment>


Amazing Chinese DIY Inventions - <AUTHOR> http://m.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/05/chinese-diy-inventions/100511/

<comment><AUTHOR> My favorites are the bicycle that runs on the water, and DIY prosthetic arms.

</comment><comment><USER2> > Yang's cannon, made out of a wheelbarrow, pipes and rockets, is used to > defend his fields against property developers who wants his land.

That's... innovative, but really sad.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gotta love that skirt on the bulb robot.</comment>


How One Jira Ticket Made My Employer $1MM/Month: 7 Metrics That Actually Matter - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/javascript-scene/how-one-jira-ticket-made-my-employer-1mm-month-7-metrics-that-actually-matter-ffb5b2376a6b <comment><USER2> > Tip: Your marketing and sales teams should never be allowed to discuss > features "in the pipeline"

Probably unpopular here, but this is a misguided, engineer-centric view of a business. Sales & marketing should absolutely have _some_ leeway on unreleased features, as they have very close relationships with customers and can get early feedback in the realest way possible: "Will the customer pay for it?" Cutting off this avenue is popular for engineers (myself included) but not necessarily good for the long term health of a business.

<comment><USER3> I think this is meant in another way: sales and marketing should never discuss future features _with potential customers_. Meaning, they should not try to win deals by promising features not yet rolled out, rather than not being involved in internal priorization discussions.

I happen to agree with the author to an extent. Selling future things rather than what's presently available makes sales a lot easier (which is why reps are often eager to do it), but the true value is created when sales sells what is already there. My father always put it this way: _You have to sell what you have_.

<comment><USER2> This approach is cutting off a major strategic artery. Sales & marketing can do much more than just pushing what they're given; they should be a valuable pulse on the customer, and the truest feedback you can get for an upcoming feature is whether or not someone will pay you for it.

Particularly for larger or more advanced features, it makes much more sense to run engineering partly in parallel with sales & marketing (with feedback between the two) rather than in serial. Product and innovation cycles in the company are much tighter that way, and more accurate.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but the conversation should be

Customer: "We want your product to do $FEATURE, there's nothing else that does it / other products that do it have these problems" Sales: "Thanks, we'll have a look at that and see if it's possible in the future"

or

When many customers want $FEATURE, it's something to consider

What shouldn't happen is

Sales: "Buy this product, it's great, and in the future it will have $FEATURE" Customer: "Great, we want $FEATURE, when will it be ready"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At first I thought the ticket was going to be "stop using JIRA/Confluence".

There is so much time wasted on this system where I work it's amazing. Some people sit all day updating JIRA with all kind of crap instead of actually doing their job.

At this point I'm starting to get the same feeling towards it as towards SAP.

<comment><USER6> I think Jira's knobs and settings can get in the way, but I've found it to be fairly effective when used in a focused way (and recent updates seem to have optimized for that)

<comment><USER7> Our JIRA is kinda our external memory and our input for external teams.

For team members, it's easier and more effective to bob a post-it onto the right white board and explain it during standup. Hosted JIRA is just infuriatingly slow for that workflow, tbh.

For everyone else, yeah. Put in a JIRA ticket, one of us will put in clarifications there. If it's something weird, we'll document steps there and convert them into a runbook later. It's good enough for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This post has nothing to do with tickets, Jira, Agile or actual in pocket cash. It just says "do a usability test" some time before shipping.

</comment><comment><USER9> _After a while, I ran the same analysis I did before. The shopping cart abandonment rate was reduced by double digits: A difference worth more than $1 million dollars per month._

This is not a statistically valid way to test the effectiveness of your change.

For example, if you sell toys, and you run an analysis on the week before Christmas, then you make your code change, and then check again on the week after Christmas, you are going to have differences in customer behavior that have nothing to do with your change.

<comment><USER10> It also depends on how long "a while" is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Do I want my team to value the number of tickets closed, or do I want them > to value our critical business KPIs?

How does this look in practice, in large organizations? Is everyone empowered to freelance on whatever they think will improve said KPIs?

At some point, someone needs to have the power to decide what is being built (hopefully with an eye towards KPI-impact), and others need to fall in line and close some tickets.

<comment><USER12> Well, presumably the tickets you have are there to build KPI-improving features. The people who open the tickets open them for that purpose! At our company even people who "freelance" stuff still open tickets for that work, because it's useful to document stuff and help others learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The problem is in most businesses you can explain this until you're blue in the face, to no avail.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting article - most of these metrics should be learned on the job for a lot of product managers.

</comment><comment><USER15> Sounds like the team lacked a UX designer, probably as well an experienced software product manager. Testing conversion rates is UX 101.

</comment><comment><USER16> tl;dr: be sure to usability test your products.

</comment><comment><USER17> 2016</comment>


The High Priestess of Posterity (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.outsideonline.com/1825881/high-priestess-posterity <comment><USER2> "It doesn't matter if you're Reinhold Messner or Ed Viesturs: your summit never happened unless Elizabeth Hawley says it did."</comment>


THE DYSFUNCTIONAL ENGINEER LEADERSHIP - <AUTHOR> http://www.nicolabortignon.com/the-dysfunctional-engineer-leadership/ <comment><USER2> The eng leadership at the company I work for nailed the Narcissistic and Political points. Yakes!</comment>


Euromyths 1992 to 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ <comment><USER2> The kinds of people who believe these headlines (some of them require a hilarious misunderstanding of what the EU even is) will not find this page, nor will they engage with the content on the page. And if they did; they would claim bias because it's the European Union website.

I know this because my mother is a firm brexiteer (and, honestly, so was I until I actually started looking at things- most of England outside of London have a dim opinion of the EU and groupthink is stronger than you'd expect.)

Regardless, this highlights one of the pain points of the EU, it has bad PR and is misunderstood by many.

However, the cost of solving this issue would be shouldered on taxpayer- which would be more ammunition to the anti-EU movement.

"They're forcing us to pay for propaganda".

I don't really have a solution. It's just a bad situation. I wish the UK written press wasn't operating entirely at the will of Rupert Murdoch though.

<comment><USER3> > most of England outside of London have a dim opinion of the EU

Nah. Can't simply blame it on stupid Northerners. It was far more nuanced than that. There were multiple reasons for no votes, not all of which had anything to do with the EU at all. Plenty of remainers in the Northern colonies like Scotland and Manchester. Plenty who recognise their deprived town or region has significant EU funding. Deprivation of course brings other issues, like some blaming minorities for their woes. Brexit delivered a campaign blaming minorities and free movement. :p

The saddest one to my mind is those who apparently wanted to give the govt a bloody nose for years of austerity and under-investment in the regions. That's quite some disconnect!

<comment><USER2> >Can't simply blame it on stupid Northerners.

As one myself, that was not my intention at all.

30+ years of anti-EU propaganda, lots of lies leading up to the referendum. Catchy soundbites like "project fear" to dispel any attempts at reasoning potential downsides.

It all adds up, and even then it was a very slim vote to leave.

But my original post still stands; EU has pretty poor PR in the UK (and likely elsewhere) but an attempt to improve it would likely give ammunition to the very tabloids who despise the EU today.

<comment><USER3> > As one myself, that was not my intention at all.

My bad. :) There's certainly been some attempts to land blame on the provinces.

> 30+ years of anti-EU propaganda ... EU has pretty poor PR

Quite. One of the most telling things is there has been almost no EU PR over the decades. Just the odd logo on a development or in a region receiving aid. Most governments put out ads, or leaflets from time to time. The EU should perhaps have done a little too - maybe a "your region has got £xxm in development funding" message could have registered the thought they're not all bad in a few minds. Barely anything positive to be heard from pro-EU MPs and parties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A lovely demonstration of the quality of UK media. These haven't just been from rags like the Sun and Mail, but Telegraph and Times too.

Is it any wonder the referendum campaign was based on impossible dreams and lies?

I also wonder if the EU have had to produce a similar page for any other EU state.</comment>


Plotting Deep Learning Model Performance Trajectories - <AUTHOR> http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2017/12/plotting-deep-learning-model-performance-trajectories/ <comment><USER2> I hope you take this post positively. I certainly intend it to be.

You need to focus more on using prepositions. Chaining 4 modifiers like you did in this title is very awkward. For example you could have used something like this: Plotting performance trajectories for deep learning models. Rightly or wrongly you and your posts will be more respected if you use good writing style.</comment>


Air Force Study Shows Potential, Limits of Quantum Tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/08/09/air-force-study-shows-potential-limits-quantum-technology-pentagon/31233467/ <comment><USER2> Quality science coverage! It came as a shock to me that the USAF didn't use transistors or leds!

Wait, was that the wrong sort of quantum? Well, then I also am surprised that they are only just now thinking of exploring superconductors, although I guess that too is the wrong sort of quantum. And lasers, and laser optics, I guess those are also not quite quantum enough to be covered in a study about quantum tech...

Good thing they at least discovered that quantum computing is still not something you do with more bits than you have fingers, and that quantum encryption turned out to be like regular encryption: hard to get right.

</comment><comment><USER3> The name of the expert quoted in the briefing, Werner Dahm ([https://www.aiaa.org/Secondary.aspx?id=15445](https://www.aiaa.org/Secondary.aspx?id=15445)), rung a bell.

He seems to be the son of an earlier Werner Dahm, the one who helped develop the Saturn V rocket, and who was before that the youngest of Wernher von Braun's team at Peenemunde.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think there are a few more areas that need to be figured out before the "big bang" of quantum, things like HTS for example but it's obvious huge inroads have already been made (ie, [http://www.wired.com/2012/02/ibm-quantum- milestone/](http://www.wired.com/2012/02/ibm-quantum-milestone/)) but the part that bugs me about this article is the fact that it is a "highly redacted report that won't be available until January" ... who does that help? Would you even want anyone outside the US to know any of this ... if something under those redacted lines is amazing (in the computational sense), I am sure it is in the best interest to hide it for a while.

</comment><comment><USER4> Almost all the people I know who are doing pure physics are studying quantum computing.

I am not sure if its hype or the professors actually think its going to really viable soon - In any case I am not sure why there is a shortage of funding !

I do not see why we cannot fund both the software side and hardware side. Research in quantum computing is cheap, unlike building new rockets, or building particle accelerators like the European.

</comment><comment><USER5> WTF does "quantum capabilities" mean?

<comment><USER2> It means someone imagined they could put "quantum" in front of a "capabilities", creating a vague sense of "futureness", and get away with it.

<comment><USER6> No, it means you can have 1 capability, or 2 capabilities, but you can't ever have 1.5 capabilities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> omg.. it took a govt study to come to the conclusion that quantum technologies aren't ready for prime time..?</comment>


Ask HN: Are there sites that are like HN, but for science, music, history etc? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I get what the OP is getting at here. Reddit's system is a little different than HN's. I honestly think the limiting in the ability to downvote helps this space. And I do find that the community is better here than Reddit. The main subreddits of those topics tend to have a lot more armchair types. One of the reasons I love HN is that the majority of users are more informed about the topics than the average person. There are a lot more thoughtful discussions, and more advanced topics being discussed.

I mean ask yourself, why are you here in the first place? If you're claiming is that this is just Reddit, why are you here?

<comment><USER3> >And I do find that the community is better here than Reddit

No, it's really not. It's much worse.

Reddit is not a single community. It's a collection of tens of thousands of communities (or hundreds even). Each subreddit is really a different community. Some are awful, others are good. And each one is focused on a certain topic.

>The main subreddits of those topics tend to have a lot more armchair types. One of the reasons I love HN is that the majority of users are more informed about the topics than the average person.

And this place doesn't have armchair types? Sure, for programming topics you'll find real experts here, but when it comes to some other type of science or engineering, the users here are know-it-alls who really don't know what they're talking about. Programmers are infamous for this kind of behavior; they think that because they know CS in and out that this also makes them an expert on civil engineering, biology, genetics, etc. People here may be more informed than the average person, but that's not saying much since the average person is a drooling idiot. But if you want to find thoughtful discussion on some engineering topic that isn't computer science or programming, this really isn't the best place for it. I've seen way too many examples of people making terrible arguments about things they really don't know about because it's not their field, and then defending these dumb arguments endlessly.

At least on Reddit you have a better chance of the people in that subreddit being actual experts in that field, instead of just a bunch of Silicon Valley programmers who think they're experts on everything.

<comment><USER4> How about "the community is better here than Reddit's default subreddits", then?

Reddit has exactly the same problems as the ones you describe HN has, even in specialty subreddits populated with experts. People always think expertise in one field extends to expertise in others.

<comment><USER3> >How about "the community is better here than Reddit's default subreddits", then?

Well how about, "the community here is better than the community on Twitter"? That makes about as much sense. Who cares what Reddit's defaults are? How is that relevant to anything at all? If you want to see discussion of, say, bluegrass music, you're not going to find it on Reddit's defaults. But there's probably a subreddit for it.

> shallot_router 25 minutes ago | parent | on: Ask HN: Are there sites that > are like HN, but for ...

How about "the community is better here than Reddit's default subreddits", then?

>Reddit has exactly the same problems as the ones you describe HN has, even in specialty subreddits populated with experts. People always think expertise in one field extends to expertise in others.

That's not true. Subreddits are narrowly focused on specific topics. Go to a genetics subreddit and you're not going to see any discussion of civil engineering, because it's irrelevant and off-topic. HN and similar programmer forums are different: they have all kinds of science/tech articles thrown together in one place. So the only time you'll see experts making ill-informed comments on Reddit is when some side discussion pops up, which just isn't nearly as frequent as on here where non-programming topics are discussed all the time as prime topics, or when non-experts (e.g. programmers with a side interest in that topic) join that group and join discussions.

The fundamental problem with HN (as well as similar sites like Slashdot and Soylent) is that they're general-interest forums, so they'll always have this problem. But I contend it's worse here (and those other two sites) precisely because programmers, due to their autistic nature, have a much worse problem than people in other fields in thinking they're experts in everything.

<comment><USER5> >due to their autistic nature, have a much worse problem than people in other fields in thinking they're experts in everything.

If you're as unimpressed with the community as it would seem, what's keeping you here at all? At the risk of sounding rude, I'd say your presence wouldn't be missed too much.

<comment><USER3> You are being rude. It's normal to complain about things without wanting to give up on them altogether. Do you have any small complaints about your spouse? Why don't you just get a divorce? Do you have any complaints about your kids? Why don't you just disown them and give them up to the state?

I'm here because 1) the programming discussions are generally excellent. (i.e., this site works very well for its audience's primary interest) And 2) even for the non-programming articles, this is a good place to see such articles (articles being separate from the HN discussion about them) in one place, where I might not see them otherwise if I don't have a big enough interest to join such a group on Reddit (for instance, various history articles). The discussion can also be interesting, because the people here are generally intelligent, but you have to take things with a grain of salt because of the tendency I complained of earlier. However, that's no different from many other sites like Slashdot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I asked a similar question a while back specifically for art related topics ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=625854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=625854)). I remember having this feeling that I found some "secret" community when I first discovered HN, and I think that's essentialy the reason this comes up every once in a while.

An interesting point is that communities are about people, not technology. However, it's the technology that sets the tone. Take for example how the discussion here is text only, which encourages more thoughtful responses (or at least less memeful). Or the monologues people are sending each other on whatsapp. Or the <= 140 character quips on twitter. Obviously, just having the option to upvote and downvote has an impact too.

I think that maybe the consolidation that's happening on the internet is hurting the formation of these organic communities and is limiting how we interact through technology. But anyway, to answer your question, did you try Quora? The format is more of a question and answer site, and the quality largely depends on whom you're following. For music for example you can try Ethan Hein and Hans Zimmer.

</comment><comment><USER7> Trying not to be a smart ass but aren't you just looking for reddit? i.e. HN for X?

<comment><USER8> I wanted to smartassedly point the user to concrete subreddits that would fit, but are there any, really?

/r/AskHistorians is great perhaps even better than HN in signal/noise ratio but it only has "news" on Wednesdays (and that feature is not very popular).

/r/AskScience has a similar problem and /r/Science is getting too many jokes/memes/regurgitated press releases.

I don't even know where to start for music, /r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/ ?

<comment><USER9> For music, the place for discussion OF music (rather than about making music) is /r/letstalkmusic, which is actually one of the highest quality discussion subs I know of. It's got a relatively slow but incredibly high quality stream of discussions, of all aspects of music history, various bands, philosophy and psychology surrounding music, etc.

For music discovery, /r/listentothis is alright (although it has declined greatly since becoming a default). /r/listentous is sometimes much better and sometimes much worse, by the nature of the sub (elected recommenders). The real best places for discovery are the genre-specific subs however, i.e. /r/metal, /r/futurebeats, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're after niche kind of forums I would suggest these:

physics -

[https://www.physicsforums.com/](https://www.physicsforums.com/)

photography gear -

[https://www.dpreview.com/forums/](https://www.dpreview.com/forums/)

</comment><comment><USER11> We are building something like that, for all the fields out there. We've built an interest graph that allows for it to the targeting to be hyper-relevant that really gets at exactly what you are interested in (so what era/region/aspect of history rather than just 'history').

We are launching our beta in the next couple of months, but until then you can sign up on [http://shuffle.do](http://shuffle.do) to stay tuned. Happy to answer any questions.

<comment><USER2> How are you keeping the community focused? And how are you dealing with armchair types? I don't expect you to ever get rid of them, and they can be useful, but is there a way to keep the real experts higher priority?

<comment><USER11> Good questions! Highly simplified but when you come in, we ask you a few specifically-designed questions about what you are interested in, which helps us drill down into very specific interests. Through those questions, we can also recognize folks for whom that field/interest is a less serious pursuit.

And then when you post, you select the topic/community and our algorithm does the targeting/distribution accordingly. This keeps your feed hyper-relevant as the network grows.

We've studied different network and community dynamics, and taken them into account when designing Shuffle as our aim is to become the hub for all of the fields out there.

<comment><USER2> Well I signed up, I'll be interested to give it a try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> [https://barnacl.es](https://barnacl.es): News for bootstrappers, not VC hackers

</comment><comment><USER13> If you're interested in discussion on those topics the relevant Stack Exchange site would probably be a good place.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't second this suggestion. Stackexchange sites are for Q&A, not for discussion about a topic.

<comment><USER13> We're having a discussion in response to a question right now. It is not for general discussion (except in chat), you're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Well, I don't know anything of the quality of hn, but if you are interested in analytics we could kick off one.

</comment><comment><USER16> yup, it's called Reddit</comment>


Andy Grove on battery power - The answer may lie in Silicon Valley. - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/16/technology/grove_battery.fortune/

<comment><USER2> Um... does this actually have anything to do with Silicon Valley?

<comment><USER3> Presumably the center of startups and innovation, no?</comment></comment>


Apple's Recycling Robot May Help Build iPhones, Too - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601094/apples-recycling-robot-may-help-build-iphones-too/ <comment><USER2> I was very disappointed to see that Apple's wow moment at the last product presentation was a robot that helps recycle iPhones.</comment>


The most disorienting game of Tetris you'll ever play - <AUTHOR> http://www.firstpersontetris.com

<comment><USER2> I thought it was better than regular tetris. Much more intuitive once you're in the zone.</comment>


Do We Need a Victims Commissioner? - <AUTHOR> http://barristerblogger.com/2019/08/19/do-we-need-a-victims-commissioner/ <comment><AUTHOR> This article by an English barrister describes some worrying changes to law that have already happened in England and Wales, and some worrying proposals.

It mentions Carl Beech. If you haven't heard of that case he was a fantasist who claimed to have been sexually abused by a high profile paedophile ring, causing huge amounts of police investigation and arrests. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49048972](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49048972)

The article mentions the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That's here: [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_2003...](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf)

And the Crown Prosecution Service guidance is here: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual- offenc...](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences- chapter-2-sexual-offences-act-2003-principal-offences-and)

<comment><USER2> 'Worrying changes' is putting it lightly. For those who haven't read the article - there is a very alarming trend of reducing double-jeopardy protections in England. I.e. to allow people to be tried for the same crime again, even if they were found not guilty the first time.</comment></comment>


Show HN: MindHappy is for reminding yourself of all good things happening to you - <AUTHOR> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindhappy-gratitude-journal/id1379914344 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! MindHappy is for reminding yourself of all good things that are happening to you every day! Writing down three things that made you happy every day can make a difference! ios: [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindhappy-gratitude- journal/id...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mindhappy-gratitude- journal/id1379914344) android: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mind.happy...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mind.happy.gratitude.journal)</comment>


Hong Kong Police Shoot a Protester, 18, with a Live Bullet for the First Time - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/world/asia/hong-kong-police-shooting-national-day.html <comment><USER2> > _In the video, the protester who was shot is first seen joining a black-clad > mob of people who chase a riot officer and tackle him to the ground. They > kick him and beat him with what appear to be metal pipes._

> _At one point, the protester approaches a second police officer who is > standing nearby with a handgun drawn. Just after the protester hits the > officer with the pipe, the officer fires at the man at point-blank range._

I'm just as pro-democracy as the next guy, but I can hardly fault a police officer for shooting someone in the shoulder when they are being hit with a metal pipe.

I hope the pro-democracy movement in HK returns to its origins of peaceful demonstrations. I don't think its good for the movement's long-term sustainability to turn violent.

<comment><USER3> What is the end game to your advice? China can successfully plant saboteurs into the movement and will win that game. The only people watching HK with sympathy are outsiders, and any intervention must be weighed against war.

We already have mass persecution if ethnic Muslims in China with reports of organ harvesting. The world (who?) isn't going to war with China over something like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Closeup video of the shooting: [https://streamable.com/2hei6](https://streamable.com/2hei6)

Longer video of the shooting: [https://streamable.com/qtyii](https://streamable.com/qtyii)

</comment><comment><USER5> As saddened I am by this, I would like to point out, though, that the protest movement has quickly become just like Occupy, where there are now significant pockets of people taking advantage of the movement to simply cause chaos and unrest unrelated to advocating responsibly for change.

Perhaps they have some remotely legitimate grievance, but more so they're bent on taking advantage of the situation to break windows, hurl petrol bombs, etc. because they're "young and restless".

It is difficult for the police and government to distinguish which is which until every Saturday night when the "action" erupts. How is a movement to handle these types of actors in their midst?

</comment><comment><USER6> Hope this will change the perception of the behavior of mainland china over HK. Wish them to succeed in being a democratic island.

<comment><USER7> It's not an island.

<comment><USER8> I'm morbidly fascinated by what you thought you meant to say here.

<comment><USER9> I am going to reach and say that the poster means to describe Hong Kong as Kowloon & Hong Kong Island. I have never been there, I am just here to try clarifying.

<comment><USER10> I've been there a few times. My fiancee was born and raised on Hong Kong.

It's true that the protests also involve the Kowloon side, and even the New Territories, but it's also perfectly reasonable to refer to Hong Kong as an island, because everything else isn't actually Hong Kong proper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This piece of news isn't really visible, to the degree I think it should (at least in my country).

I worry that, if the Chinese government feels that their escalation isn't causing much noise on the international stage, they'll take that as an ok sign to continue...

<comment><USER12> It seems to be getting a lot of attention outside of China.

I think the shooting will be seen as completely justified since the police officer was under attack and appeared to use non-lethal force to defend himself, so China won't see much of a negative response from other nations.

<comment><USER8> I think citizens in nations like the US who generally support police violence at scale will probably think like you do and suggest an agent of a government that is effectively foreign to Hong Kong was "defending himself" while attempting to disperse a group of protesters advocating for self rule at the behest of aforementioned government.

<comment><USER12> I'm going to ignore the implied insults in your response and clarify my position, which I don't think is controversial or held only by citizens of nations that you believe "generally support police violence at scale": Any person (or other living being for that matter) that is being hit with a pipe by an attacker has the right to defend themselves from that person.

<comment><USER8> I just don't see how you can map someone trying to break up a pro democracy demonstration as an innocent trying to protect themselves from an attack. He's a civil officer armed with lethal force. The protesters had blunt objects.

If you enter into a conflict bearing deadly force you either must be prepared to kill or withdraw your presence. It is not some accident that the police officer was there.

<comment><USER12> Yes, he's a civil officer armed with lethal force. He presumably was prepared to kill or withdraw, but managed to prevent himself from being killed by the person hitting him with a pipe or the firebomb that went off shortly after he shot the person hitting him with a pipe, it doesn't look like the person with the pipe was fatally wounded, and the group of people in the area who appeared to be making efforts to injure people and destroy property were dispersed.

I assume you would prefer that this officer was not there in the first place, and Hong Kong was under the control of leaders that were selected in free, fair elections. Me too!

However, the original point I made was that this officer handled the situation in a way that is unlikely to generate much, if any, outrage from the international community or additional sympathy for Hong Kong protesters. Nothing you've said at any point in this discussion has seriously addressed this point, let alone refuted it, so this is probably my last comment in this thread, since you seem to be much more interested in posting rhetoric than having a conversation.

<comment><USER8> What I'm saying is they ought to be outraged, but we're so used to police violence that when we see a police officer choose to shoot a young person instead of leave the area, folks hem and haw and say, "Well they did have a pipe."

For what it's worth, I am saying you're right. But I also think that non- violent protests only rarely accomplish much of anything on their own when it comes to government change. Folks talk about a moral high ground in these cases, but I think its important to note that the status quo ultimately benefits the aggressors in cases like these.

You can call this rhetoric if you like. I think it's odd you're asking me to provide an address to a point I ultimately agree with? Folks who like police violence will like police violence. You can tell they like police violence because when presented with clear cases of police violence, they make excuses.

<comment><USER12> I can't help but point out a perfect example of why I don't think you're interested in an actual discussion: The person with the pipe didn't just have a pipe, he initiated the interaction by hitting the officer with it. If the person with the pipe was just walking down the street, or even waving it in a menacing fashion, and the officer fired, this would be a very different situation.

If you genuinely don't see the difference between your description and what was captured in the video, it's not possible to have a rational discussion about this. If you do, you're being disingenuous at best, and it's also probably not possible to have a rational discussion about this.

<comment><USER8> > he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer > responded.

Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there threatening a crowd advocating for the right to self determination. He came with lethal armament with the obvious goal of dispersing the gathering. That's why he was there, and the video shows it.

You see militarized police as normal, so this doesn't shock you. I refuse to accept that.

You can accuse me of acting in bad faith but I don't see how I could be more honest about my intentions or characterizations. You aren't even really refuting them, it seems you agree that militarized police presence should be normalized in our considerations. I'm not so sure. No good comes of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> there is no jusificafion to use gun as argued by an open letter of the Public Doctor Association.

Use of gun by the police is a right that need support of the community via law and court. If you can shoot people like that (and not just him there are several other shooting), you have to ask why people has to accept you to have gun. We do not have. Do we trust the system the police will investigate the case of their own kind? If not, should we go to jungle law. Unjust shooting and police violence in many places (like USA and uk) lead to real riot. The system may break down. I hope the police and the government understand how serious the situation could develop.

More importantly it is human rights ignored by the police. Just watch a video of police holding a video camera on a market asking everyone to look at the camera. Then saying you are all rubbish. Another one is about cursing of reporter and if you not go they said they will shoot you like the Indonesian reporter.

There are million coming out yesterday. They should just we go. It is always peaceful if the Police do not overreact. they did.

There is no excuse. Fighting yes but gun shoot no. If the police do not want chaos and even revenge, have to walk back to what they do just 6 months ago. If not, I am afraid I would advice none if you to Hong Kong.

Three finger up : if we are burnt, you will burn with us ... is not just a slogan of a movie. It has been used by the protestor from day one.

Good luck. God bless Hong Kong. We are all Human. We are not cockroaches.</comment>


Ask HN: What chance that we wouldn't notice Covid19 if we hadn't tested for it? - <AUTHOR> I'd like this mainly to be a statistical/mathematical discussion based on the present data about Covid19.
My question is: at what point in time did we know that Covid19 is killing more people than usual, based on the statistics?
My understanding is that the people that are counted as Covid19 deaths are those that were tested Covid 19-positive and then died from Pneumonia related health issues. However, Covid19 is possibly not the only Virus that can lead to Pneumonia and a person could be infected with multiple Viruses at the same time (I guess).
Do we also test if a Covid19 positive person has the current influenza Virus in them, for example?
Assume that all Covid19 patients also had the Influenza Virus in them, which might cause similar symptoms, then how do we know if a person should be counted towards "Covid19 death" or "Influenza death"? Or do we only count people to "Covid19 deaths" that only carried the Covid19 virus (and we specifically tested for other viruses)?
Also, I can't find base rates on the number of pneumonia deaths each year in Wuhan and the speed with which those are usually rising to determine how bad things really are.
What are the models that are used to determine how bad things are when a new Virus is being found and at what point do we usually know that a newly found Virus is bad?
Overall I would like to know: how likely is it, that we would have never found anything being wrong just based on the people that die from Pneumonia related issues this year if we had never found Covid19? And with what confidence can we answer that question? <comment><USER2> > how likely is it, that we would have never found anything being wrong just > based on the people that die from Pneumonia related issues this year if we > had never found Covid19?

0%. Just read the reports from Wuhan and Italy. For example, citing from [https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/):

March 20 (GMT)

Italy: in the city of Bergamo, there were 108 more deaths in the first 15 days of March this year compared to 2019 (164 deaths in 2020 vs. 56 deaths in 2019) according to the mayor of the city Giorgio Gori. During this period, 31 deaths were attributed to the coronavirus (less than 30% of the additional deaths this year)

"There are significant numbers of people who have died but whose death hasn't been attributed to the coronavirus because they died at home or in a nursing home and so they weren't swabbed," said the mayor [source]

March 19 (GMT)

Italian army trucks form a long line in the center of Bergamo to transport the coffins from the Bergamo cemetery to cremation sites in other regions, as morgues can't cope with more coronavirus deaths

Obituaries in the local newspaper went from 1.5 pages (on Feb. 9) to 10 pages (on March 13)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're comparing the number of deaths this year only to the number last year in the exact same time. What were the numbers in the years before? Comparing it to only one previous year doesn't allow to say that this is significant. With only one year we don't know the variance of this number. If less than 30% of the additional deaths this year were attributed to corona virus and 30% lies within a reasonable variance of this number over the years, then we wouldn't have noticed, or not?

Same for the remaining info: we don't know how many times it happened before (for example in the previous 20 years or so) that the morgues couldn't cope with more people dying from more people dying from pneumonia (for example during a particularly bad influenza season). That the corpses have been transported away by military trucks also doesn't tell us anything from a statistical point of view.

<comment><USER2> > If less than 30% of the additional deaths this year were attributed to > corona virus and 30% lies within a reasonable variance of this number over > the years, then we wouldn't have noticed, or not?

You seem to be misinterpreting the statement, which says that even though "only" 30% of additional deaths are proven to be caused by the virus, the real number is likely higher.

It should be obvious that the situation in northern Italy is far beyond "reasonable variance". Google is your friend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well yeah.. it is likely higher.. let's say it's 50% or even 200%. That could still be within the variance. If you can't tell me what this variance is, then it is not obvious at all that the situation in Italy is far beyond "reasonable variance"! So far you have not given me any evidence that proves this statistically. Also you're misinterpreting the statement "it is likely higher" and assume this means it is definitely higher.

<comment><USER2> Please stop spreading FUD. Thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I meant by "I want this to be a statistical discussion". I'm not spreading FUD at all. Those are all valid questions from a statistical point of view.

I'm definitely not spreading Fear. Fear is what is spread by the media when showing military trucks carrying away corpses and people subsequently assume that the situation is very very bad without asking for baselines.

<comment><USER2> [https://reason.com/2020/03/17/italian-daily-death-rate- up-20...](https://reason.com/2020/03/17/italian-daily-death-rate- up-20-because-of-coronavirus-lombardy-up-about-80/)

The evidence is overwhelming. Questioning it is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I won't comment further.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for not contributing anything useful to this discussion.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ITunes store account hacked - <AUTHOR> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2665383

<comment><USER2> Nov 28, 2010

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, it looks like the first report was then, but the next 46 pages of the thread show people complaining about it including Sept. 12, 2011. More info at: [https://www.macworld.com/article/161794/2011/09/the_towson_h...](https://www.macworld.com/article/161794/2011/09/the_towson_hack_the_mystery_of_disappearing_itunes_credit.html)</comment></comment>


What Do Computers Tell Us About God - Reflections of a computer scientist - <AUTHOR> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=394576 <comment><USER2> Carlin says it so well:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8evsSNdXcs>

</comment><comment><USER3> Bahá'í is a cool religion, though.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith>

</comment><comment><USER4> Much like the internet, mythology is serious business.

</comment><comment><USER5> A scientist - but he provides quotes from religious books as 'evidence'.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yuk. How horribly unimaginative!</comment>