How shipping saved my life - <AUTHOR> http://yearofhustle.com/amy

<comment><USER2> > And I don't mean saved my life in a hand-wavy, metaphysical way, like "Punk > rock saved my life" or "Martha Stewart Every Day Living saved my life".

Being the literal-minded computer sort I am, I was waiting for the punch line, and it's kind of disappointing:

> Shipping my own projects saved my creative life.

Which is a bit annoying, because the rest of it seems like good enough advice.

<comment><USER3> I was waiting to hear that she got lost and if a poor soul hadn't heard of her because of a webapp she had created, they wouldn't have brought her in when her car broke down, saving her from death by exposure.

<comment><AUTHOR> I took out the vivid descriptions of personal misery because I thought they were too much of a downer.

No little-matchgirl snow, though.

The point is, it's like having an entirely new life. Was that unclear?

<comment><USER4> _And I don't mean saved my life in a hand-wavy, metaphysical way, like "Punk rock saved my life" or "Martha Stewart Every Day Living saved my life". This is not your typical vague Tomato Soup for the Soft-Seller's Soul crap—I can name dates and numbers._

This bit promises a literally life saving--i.e. you would be dead otherwise. The rest of the post is great, but opening with this is a big distraction since the post turns out to be exactly what you promise it isn't.

<comment><AUTHOR> "The Clash totally like, spoke to me, man." "My new chair rail really brings the room together!"

vs

"My life has been completely transformed from the inside out and PS, I don't hate it any more"

Don't seem the same to me.

<comment><USER3> Please don't underestimate the power of music to change a life. A Perfect Circle's "Judith" was a song that came out as I was leaving an abusive religious group. That, and other music, was part of a major transition in my life, allowing myself to reprogram innate beliefs of my unworthiness as an individual, among other things.

Leaving that religious group, quite literally, saved my life as I was on a track to suicide. Punk music did the same to many in that generation.

<comment><USER5> > A Perfect Circle's "Judith" was a song that came out as I was leaving an > abusive religious group.

May I recommend the song "Wings for Marie, part 2" by Tool? The lead singer of Tool and A Perfect Circle is the same fellow, and it's a song with a similar theme. I don't listen to much Tool any more, but I did check out the new album a couple years ago as I was a fan when I was younger. Not as good as Lateralus or Aenima in my opinion, but the track Wings part 2 was really really good.

[http://www.metrolyrics.com/10000-days-wings-part-2-lyrics- to...](http://www.metrolyrics.com/10000-days-wings-part-2-lyrics-tool.html)

To listen (it's a long song, so in two parts):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg5LeuJA8UE>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGFy_CwA5hk>

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but 10,000 days came out years later. :) I was at the Coachella concert days before it was officially released. (Not to mention the Phoenix concert where he was hit by a water bottle thrown from off stage.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hats off to Amy Hoy for getting me to read a sales letter from top to bottom and enjoying it. Year of hustle indeed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, sir!

I believe that the best sales material is educational and practically stands alone. Hasn't steered me wrong yet.

<comment><USER7> I liked it too, but it was still bait-and-switch. Boo to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "For the 12-week course, workbooks & other printables, teleconfs and support, you'll pay only $500."

I don't know whether the specific course she is selling is any good or not, but I'm fascinated by the possibility that little courses like this could eventually be the future of higher education.

I'm taking the Dave Ramsey financial course right now, and the experience compares favorably to university style instruction. People local to you congregate in one place each week to watch a video of Dave presenting a topic, break into groups after words to discuss the topic of the video, and then there's homework to do before the next class meets, along with a book and other materials, and more content on his web site. All for about a hundred bucks.

When I see people from the class outside the classroom, suddenly it's easy to talk about money, something that would otherwise be socially inappropriate.

Anyhow, is picking and choosing from courses like this a viable way to educate yourself? Are there subjects for which it wouldn't work? What does a university really add over these kinds of courses?

<comment><USER9> University adds:

* it forces you to take classes that are good for you but you probably wouldn't take on your own

* social connections

* space to experiment on who you are as a person

* chance to get laid

<comment><USER10> I was socially anxious in school so I didn't really experience that much of the last three.

regarding the first one, it's almost a tautology that you are being habituated into doing things you are ambivalent about for reasons you may not fully understand. perfect practice for the day job you get after graduating, really.

on the other hand, my self-actualized programmer friend - who never went to school and works on his own projects - occasionally has a tinge of insecurity because he never took a compiler class.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Shipping is awesome, and if you don't ship you've got nothing.

But to think your first product/site/whatever is going to give you creative freedom...I think that's selection bias. I've shipped a lot of mini-sites (mostly for my own amusement) and the traffic is very low and has not brought me any sort of fame.

Sure, maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I would say 9 out of 10 projects you create are not going to become popular or get you renowned.

That doesn't make it not worth doing. I've learned something new from every new project I've built and every person I've worked with. But it also hasn't benefited me financially.

<comment><AUTHOR> Twistori didn't give me creative freedom and, as I said, it earned me no money directly. (Despite the fact that, nearly 3 years after launch, in the last 90 days people spent an accumulated 57 years on the site.)

I describe what it really did for me, which LED to the creative freedom.

If you want your projects to do something for you financially, and they're not, then you should tackle that as a project in and of itself.

<comment><USER9> "I describe what it really did for me, which LED to the creative freedom."

That is, selection bias.

I think you're understating the amount of work it took you to get to the point where you could launch Twistori and have it be a success. You put in years of effort as a blogger, speaker, and "thought leader".

I really admire how you've built and audience and leveraged it to build a viable lifestyle, but you can't teach that in a 12 week class.

<comment><AUTHOR> Twistori's success had pretty much nothing to do with it. It was just that I did it. It didn't need to have the response it did. I didn't start getting the consulting work til >9 mos later, which was well after I realized what a fundamental change I'd just made.

I did calculatedly create something that would capture the zeitgeist, and that is certainly a skill you can teach. Tho that's not what the course is about.

What you _can_ teach in a 12-week course is how to identify and/or create a money-making opportunity, begin to build an audience before you launch, the skills to self-manage a project and get it out there to earn money.

Which is, coincidentally, what it's about.

If you want to read it as being about "Twistori was successful and that changed my life," I can't stop you. But what it's actually about was "I shipped something on my very own and THAT changed my life."

<comment><USER11> Congratulations on making the leap from consulting to products to a dynamic combo (products + consulting)!

The story of Twistori is amazing. Eureka moment in the bathtub and design/code immediately thereafter.

<http://slash7.com/2008/04/29/twistori-i/>

Her personal experience with Twistori being an attractor for consulting projects jibes with the iPhone developers I know who don't make a lot of money from their well-crafted iPhone apps but make the bulk of their revenue from consulting on iPhone app development for companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "When you do your own thing, you give others inspiration and permission to do their own thing." - I once read in a psychology book, that a lot of us don't get permission from our parents to do specific things. Giving a person permission to do something they desire can indeed be life changing, so in a way (although not literally), shipping did save her life...

</comment><comment><USER13> Super bad to read thanks to letter-spacing: -1px;

Oh why...

<comment><USER14> I think her design problems are pervasive...

This is what twistori looks like for me: <http://imgur.com/D920M.png>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry that you browse on a screen smaller than 620x480.

<comment><USER15> With the emergence of decent smartphone web browsers and netbooks, it really shouldn't be all that surprising.

<comment><AUTHOR> The iPhone handles Twistori.com perfectly out of the box.

Can't say I give two hoots about the alternatives.

<comment><USER14> If you don't give two hoots, why are are so defensive? Calm down, woman.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not really about defensiveness (which, no doubt, sounds defensive) -- it's about philosophy. If I were a delicate flower, I wouldn't be able to bear posting my own articles on HN.

Spreading my philosophy, on the other hand, is something I find worth doing. Also, it made me chuckle. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To those who think "saved my life" was overly dramatic, try to remember that you were reading a sales flier, not a deep introspective blog post. The fact that it came across very much as such a blog post (because it partly was) is part of the brilliance, but also means that you might take the life saving part a little more literally than the "the _best cola ever_ " advertising vibe that it maybe should have had.

That was a top shelf ad/promotion/infomercial Amy. Hats off.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.

I still feel like my life was saved. :)

If you'd met me before, you would have seen what I meant. I was utterly miserable, in the way that you can only be when you are trapped by your own great success and therefore don't even think escape is a rational option. Plus I always believed I was too much of a lazy asshole to ever be able to work for myself, really.

Making my own thing was absolutely a life-saving event for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> _"I spent a single day getting over my mopey co-dependence on clients"_

The end result, as best I can tell, is simply more consulting work. So, "shipping" is simply a break from clients with the side-effect of bringing more in.

If I was a potential client, that line above would really turn me off.

<comment><AUTHOR> You missed the part where I announced that I quit consulting and am living off the money made from:

1x SaaS web app, 1x self-published ebook, 2x 1-day in-person training workshops, 1x 2-day in-person training workshop (corporate training - yeehaw!

Plus, of course, this course, which is part of a plan. I have three other web apps in various states of completion, as well as the plans for another technical info product.

And I worked with a friend to ship a Mac app, although it's not making either of us any money. The other stuff has made a lot.

I also earned money with a 3-hour teleconference on the lessons I've learned from my "year of hustle"

That, my friend, is why it was called Year of Hustle.

PS -- even if I were still doing client work, that'd be a good thing. Being co-dependent sucks for BOTH parties to a relationship. Everybody wants to date the driven person who does for themselves - and wants to hire them, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> After reading the top page of yearofhustle.com, I am still far too uncertain about what you're offering to commit $500 to it. I think you need to make the course description more precise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback.

The actual sales part is really tailored to the audience I already have, many of whom have seen the educational stuff I create (the book, the cheat sheets, the blog posts). I figure the course will be at least 85%+ made up of them. I've already sold 25/50 seats.

If you have any specific info I could provide that would clarify it for your fresh pair of eyes, I'd appreciate it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Title could potentially be improved to "How shipping _a product_ saved my life". I figured he was getting a liver or pacemaker on a container ship from China.

</comment><comment><USER20> Ok, I stumbled upon this gem on twistify.com: <http://www.wefeelfine.org/wefeelfine_pc.html>

Takes a few seconds to load (Java applet).</comment>


Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-05/tesla-s-2-6-billion-award-to-musk-too-costly-glass-lewis-says <comment><USER2> The article doesn't go into much details of the stock award. Musk is proposing not taking a salary for the next 10 years and receiving a 1% stock award each time he meets some insanely aggressive milestones: [https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/Tesla-C...](https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/Tesla-CEO-Elon-Musk-Performance- Award-e1516720893456.jpg)

[http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1054948](http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1054948)

I'm not a TSLA shareholder, but tying CEO performance to company performance rather than an indifferently high salary seems reasonable to me.

<comment><USER3> Musk already owns tons of Tesla story and should be motivated by that. There's absolutely no evidence that additional equity would motivate him more. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth.

Like much CEO pay, Musk's pay package is more about status than about motivating him.

Or is someone really going to try to make the case that he's kinda half-assing it right now?

<comment><USER4> He's not half-assing it, but he has Mars goals which are likely to distract him at some point. He is serious about his Mars efforts. At a certain point it makes sense for him to leave to focus on that, unless staying at Tesla also helps him hit his Mars goal by 10xing the resources he can dedicate to the effort.

<comment><USER5> He said he wants all this money just so he can fund colonizing Mars.

So I'm guessing he'd take that money and just privately fund SpaceX, like Jeff Bozos is doing with blue origin.

<comment><USER6> > _I 'm guessing he'd take that money and just privately fund SpaceX_

If his goal is to colonize Mars and you want him to sell cars, a good way to do that is to say "sell cars for 10 years and we'll give you enough capital to do in the following 10 what you couldn't do in 20 from today."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> According to the article the board feels this is necessary to ensure Elon's focus is with resolving Tesla production issues, and not his other projects (SpaceX). He tries to create this superhuman "ironman" persona in the media, but the reality is no single person can possibly run all of these companies effectively, and investors are calling him out on that.

</comment><comment><USER8> Appears Glass Lewis & Co currently maintains approximately 37% of the market share for proxy advisory services - but does that mean that all of their clients vote as per Glass Lewis reports recommend? If so, given they collectively advise $20 trillion worth of assets, would someone please explain why this is not toxic to a free market.

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

<comment><USER6> > _given they collectively advise $20 trillion worth of assets, would someone > please explain why this is not toxic to a free market_

They're recommendations. Reading board proposals and working out the consequences of CEO pay packages is (a) hard and (b) not particularly rewarding. Instead of every investment firm having someone doing hard and non- rewarding work, they outsource it to these proxy advisory firms.

Keep in mind who these advisory firms' customers are: the investors. It could be impolite for XYZ shareholder to publicly vote against Elon Musk. It is easier to call one's proxy advisory firm and let them know your thoughts. (It would also be more effective, from a political perspective, at achieving her goal.)

(Nitpick: they advise _in respect of_ $20 trillion of assets. They don't make buy/sell decisions.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Isn't this setting up a bizarre incentive where every time each of the entities feels it isn't getting it's fair share of Elon's attention, that they have to bribe him with some massive stock grant?

<comment><USER10> Why not? Eventually they would end up paying him just a bit less than the value he provides, which is what you'd expect from any fair employment agreement. At some point it would be cheaper to let him go or let him not try very hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> These are the same people projecting that Apple should have sold 80M iPhone X's...and then apple "fell short" of estimates when they sold 77M [1].

Why do people listen to these proxy advisory services like Glass Lewis [2]? Honestly, none of them have anything near a good track record or are worth anything [3]. They are effectively like tabloids for the financial markets.

Honestly, I'd love to hear from someone on wall street what value these "analysts" provide?

[1] [https://www.recode.net/2018/2/1/16961202/apple-iphone-x- chin...](https://www.recode.net/2018/2/1/16961202/apple-iphone-x-china- airpods-christmas-q1-2018-earnings-charts-analysis)

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

[3] [https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/2159435...](https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21594358-bear-market-or-bull-analysts-give-bad-advice-consistently- wrong)

<comment><USER12> They explain their reasoning and do the boring legwork, even if you don't agree with their conclusion you can still find value in their analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Requires registration to read.

<comment><USER14> Or something like uBlock Origin set to block everything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wasn't Tesla having revenue problems not too long ago? Seems like someone is looking to flee a leaky ship by opening up some new ones.

</comment><comment><USER16> They should probably be spending that money on building cars.

I doubt that "more money" would make much of a dent on what Elon's motivations really are.

<comment><USER6> > _They should probably be spending that money on building cars_

It's a performance-triggered stock award in lieu of cash salary.

<comment><USER16> They should still be spending that on cars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There should be some sort of law that prevents this. Musk's companies have taken over 5 billion in government subsidies, why are my tax dollars going towards the creation of billionaires?

<comment><USER18> The subsidies do have a reason to exist, but I agree that they're misdirected. They could directly fund R&D of battery/EV/aerospace technology instead of subsidizing luxury vehicles that only serve as a novelty for the rich.

<comment><USER19> The subsidies _are_ directly funding R&D of battery/EV/aerospace technology. But this way, the rich people buying the cars are _also_ funding it, as well as the investors buying equity. The tax incentives are working precisely as they were designed, and for every dollar in subsidy there's probably $9 more in outside investment coming onboard.

<comment><USER17> The subsidies are directly funding Musk's wallet as much or more than they are funding battery research.

<comment><USER20> I get that you have strong feelings. But this is just uninformed. If you took a sec to understand Musk's comp structure you'd see that its paper wealth, as in he doesn't take cash out of the company. Instead he puts cash in the company. Also he only sold stock to pay taxes. I'd guess its likely he paid more in taxes than you, if you're an average earner.

<comment><USER19> ~$600 million in taxes actually.[1] But strangely nobody seems to subtract that amount from the value of the electric vehicle credits...

Anyone who's been there and done this knows that what the IRS giveth with one hand, the IRS taketh away with the other. The house _never_ loses, and there is no house like the United States Government.

[1] - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-21/tesla- s-m...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-21/tesla-s-musk-paid- at-least-593-million-in-income-taxes-in-2016)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


JavaScript Libraries Are Almost Never Updated Once Installed - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/javascript-libraries-are-almost-never-updated/ <comment><USER2> This is hardly surprising. Most websites are not constantly maintained. They're still pulling from the CDN everytime there is a request.</comment>


Cloud Deployment of Hadoop and HBase (Part 1-2) - <AUTHOR> http://www.dataversity.net/cloud-deployment-of-hadoop-and-hbase-part-1-2/

<comment><USER2> Child: "Don't try to be in the cloud, only remember the Truth." Neo: "The Truth?" Child: "There is no Cloud"</comment>


It's Official: AOL Acquires TechCrunch - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/its-official-aol-acquires-techcrunch-2010-9 <comment><USER2> congrats to Mike!. Will he move out from Seattle now?</comment>


Ask HN: Whose name goes on a VCS commit when pair programming? - <AUTHOR> Sometimes a programmer and I will switch between driver and observer multiple times during a programming session.
So who puts their name on a commit in those cases?
If I'm approaching pair programming wrong, I would love to hear from those with better ideas. <comment><USER2> Both? git has a --author command-line switch that allows you to override whatever's the default.</comment>


Out of options - Why executive stock options are bad for business - <AUTHOR> http://economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933600&story_id=9932208

<comment><USER2> I disagree with this statement they're quoting:

 _EURoespread of share options may be distorting the economy, contributing to a temporary overvaluation of equities, encouraging short-sighted managerial decisions and storing up problems for companies in future._

I would not call those decisions short-sighted, because typically there is a hefty vesting period associated with your options. Additionally, most employers (if they are smart) keep giving more options to top performers. Therefore, most valuable employees/executives will _always_ have some non- vested shares and it will be their interest to have a share price _constantly_ growing as opposed to sudden spikes and drops.</comment>


Tesla Model 3 Falls Short of a CR Recommendation - <AUTHOR> https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/tesla-model-3-review-falls-short-of-consumer-reports-recommendation/ <comment><USER2> _The Tesla's stopping distance of 152 feet from 60 mph was far worse than any contemporary car we've tested and about 7 feet longer than the stopping distance of a Ford F-150 full-sized pickup._

That's worrying, and almost as worrying is that Tesla says their braking is much faster. I'm sure plenty of fans will make comments about shorting stock, but this is Consumer Reports, and they have a very good reputation to protect.

I'm not thrilled by this tidbit either.

 _The Model 3's stiff ride, unsupportive rear seat and excessive wind noise at highway speeds also hurt its road-test score. In the compact luxury sedan class, most competitors deliver a more comfortable ride and rear seat._

<comment><USER3> This part really intrigued me about the stopping distance:

 _The Tesla spokeswoman says the company has the ability to update its vehicles over the air. "Unlike other vehicles, Tesla is uniquely positioned to address more corner cases over time through over-the-air software updates, and it continually does so to improve factors such as stopping distance," she says._

I'm curious the mechanism that makes that possible, or if it's just BS.

<comment><USER4> To me, it is disturbing. I get used to the way my vehicle handles, for it to suddenly change because of a software update could potentially be dangerous- but would almost certainly result in a trip to the mechanic for a checkup.

Maybe they have a system for warning owners about these sorts of updates?

<comment><USER5> Well, yes. You get prompted to update your car (you can choose not to). And then after the update is complete, you get a Whats Changed prompt the next time you're in your car. Essentially a patch notes for your vehicle

<comment><AUTHOR> For something as major as changing the way a car breaks, do you think "patch notes" (if read at all) are able to properly convey the magnitude of the change?

<comment><USER5> Yes? My 75D had an entire second shaved off of its 0 - 60 time. I was aware of the change and was able to deal with it just fine...

I'm also not sure what the alternative you're imagining here is. Take it in to a shop just to have them install the update for you? I also don't see how this is any different than changing worn out brakes on an old ICE car. I had the brakes changed in my old '97 Accord, and the difference was noticeable when I pulled it out of the driveway. I think you need to give people a little more credit...

Also, the Whats Changed prompt literally takes up the entire 17in touch screen. It's sort of hard to miss.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm talking about the general populace not only actually reading a prompt but understanding it. Based on how people interact with computers/phones, I do not have a lot of faith in their abilities on this end.

I didn't propose an alternative but there's a huge difference in awareness between a physical in-person "update" vs an OTA update.

For something as serious as changing brake handling, I'm sure they would have some sort of prominent display/cannot continue until you agree prompt but there's always going to be people who do not read things in their entirety. For something that can be destructive as a car, I don't find that acceptable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like a terrible design choice to make lots of basic adjustments use the touch screen. Adjusting the mirror and AC vents with a touch screen is almost guaranteed to be a terrible experience, especially since people do those often while they're driving.

<comment><USER7> You frequently adjust your mirror when driving? That's something I do once in a few months (if that), twice if someone drives my car and adjusts the mirrors to fit them.. Perhaps you should adjust your seat instead?

<comment><USER8> Living in a city, I must manually retract side mirrors when parking on small streets and extend them before driving. Often need to readjust the mirrors each time after extending them.

<comment><USER9> I take it that you don't drive a car that folds its mirrors when you put it in Park, which is now a common feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _past driving behavior that may have affected the brake system_

Could this mean that such a vehicle under test would brake differently than the average driver. Since the brake is constantly being slammed during repeated tests, the software adjusts breaking parameters? Still find it odd to implement such a system, but could explain the inconsistent results.

<comment><USER11> Since they did more tests the following _day_ and didn't see improved performance, it doesn't seem likely related to thermal limiting in software.

If I were to guess, it would be that in a sudden stop, something inside the brake mechanism heats up so much it bends or deforms, and then doesn't work so well after that.

If my guess is correct, it could be an expensive recall...

<comment><USER12> I can almost guarantee the brake pads glazed over due to overheating. The pad's surface will begin to work harden once a certain temperature threshold is exceeded and that hardened surface has a much lower coefficient of friction than the original unhardened pad. This work hardened material will never return to normal so full braking performance will not be restored until it is ground away by further use of the brakes (light use, you don't overheat them again and make the problem worse).

That explains why the poor braking performance was unaffected by an overnight cooldown. All that said, if the Model 3 is glazing brake pads with a single emergency stop then they need to issue a recall and figure out a fix.

<comment><USER13> The whole brake from 60-0 10 times quickly seems like a stupid metric. Would you rather have shorter stop times, but a design that fails at 15 times? Or a brake that adapts to that load and progressively stops more gently. Any sane driver would adjust.

Seems pretty stupid to evaluate cars on such a weird metric. Sure 60 to 0 or 80 to zero, but what sane person is going to accelerate up to speed as quickly as possible and try again.

Maybe Tesla's doing so poorly because it gets back to 60 quicker than it's competition.

<comment><USER14> > The whole brake from 60-0 10 times quickly seems like a stupid metric > Sure > 60 to 0 or 80 to zero, but what sane person is going to accelerate up to > speed as quickly as possible and try again.

Isn't that an argument for CR's test? They explicitly drive 1hr between each braking test so that it's not just "accelerate up to speed as quickly as possible and try again".

<comment><USER13> I dug for information like that. I only found "Our automotive engineers conduct a series of brake tests from 60 mph to a standstill on wet and dry pavement to measure stopping distances." Do you have a reference for the 1 hour between brake tests?

My reference is: [https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-how-consumer-reports- te...](https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-how-consumer-reports-tests-cars/)

<comment><USER14> Ah, it's not 1 hour, it's 1 mile. It's in the article. Still clearly not "accelerate up to speed as quickly as possible and try again".

"As its name implies, CR's braking test is meant to determine how a vehicle performs in an emergency situation. The test is based on an industry-standard procedure designed by SAE International, a global engineering association. Our testers get a car up to 60 mph, then slam on the brakes until the car comes to a stop. They repeat this multiple times to ensure consistent results. Between each test, the vehicle is driven approximately a mile to cool the brakes and make sure they don't overheat."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love cars, all kinds of cars. I bought my son a Prius, I even enjoy driving that (just for the unusual driving experience.) I like to see how long I can go on just electric power.

But I'm starting to have real doubts about Tesla. Elon talks a great game, but they've had setback after setback after setback. I have to wonder what the long-term ownership experience will be like.

Good luck to Tesla. I'd love to see them turn out well.

</comment><comment><USER16> _Unlike other vehicles, Tesla is uniquely positioned to address more corner cases over time through over-the-air software updates, and it continually does so to improve factors such as stopping distance,_

I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. Emergency braking isn't "a corner case", it is one of the primary use-cases of a braking system. Such a statement shows a blatant disregard for the intelligence of their customers, it is shocking.</comment>


Zero +: Lisp Dev Board with WIFI - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/zero-plus-prototype-your-iot-product-in-seconds

<comment><AUTHOR> I have always programmed micro controllers in C and recently bought a micro python board, which I love. It has been refreshing using python on a micro controller. I have been learning Lisp recently and can't wait to try this out!</comment>


APC, $49 Android computer, now accepting pre-orders - <AUTHOR> http://apc.io/order/pre-order/ <comment><USER2> Yet another brand-new Android 2.3 device.

Is there something about Android 4.0 that makes it difficult to work with from a hardware perspective?

<comment> excuse-me Probably more a supply chain isssue.

Every component on this thing is bargain basement, so you use whatever driver the maker of the SoC core supplied. They are also bargain basement so have used whatever driver the GPU maker supplied.

So you are really using components that were 'new' a couple of years ago. The makers of this would have to put considerable time/money into making 4.0 drivers for components that are supplied through a chain of subcontractors none of who have the technical ability to help.

It is one of the big ironies of opensource Android that in a way it's a lot less open than a regular PC.

<comment><USER2> So is it impossible or impractical because of the components not meeting Android 4.0 requirements, or is it because of software and driver issues?

I've never really seen a clear answer. Whatever the Cyanogen Mod team is up to, it must be damned tricky.

<comment> excuse-me The components might meet Android 4 requirements but you often don't have the info needed to write drivers for them

Typically for lower end parts the makers implemented the simplest cheapest thing they could get away with - so buggy limited and out of date drivers - and they have bought in modules from others, so nobody has the complete specs.

For better system the code in the SoC (and GPU especially) is what distinguishes it from other models and competitors so they are very careful about who they give details out to. Otherwise you could buy their $1 SoC and turn on the features in the $5 part.

If you are a Samsung or an Apple you can control the supply chain better and insist on having the info and compliant drivers - but most of these are aimed at mobile phone makers who rely on you having to buy a new model every 18months rather than doing updates.

Cyanogen etc do a very good job of custom kernels but they can rarely insert a much newer driver into an older chipset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For $10 more (when you include shipping), you can get a Logitech Revue on Amazon.

* Google TV/Android 3.0 instead of Android 2.3

* Access to Google Play market, which this doesn't have

* 802.11b/g/n wifi, which this doesn't have

* A really nice wireless keyboard+touchpad controller

* Essentially identical power profile

* Logitech Harmony software built in; it can control just about every TV, receiver, DVD player, etc. in existence

<comment><USER4> I think really nice is a bit of an exaggeration about the keyboard.

<comment><USER3> It's the best living room keyboard I've ever used. People have been buying them separately from the Revue just to use them with their other HTPC setups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Chip VIA 800MHz Processor"

I'm confused by this. Is it a "VIA processor" or an ARM processor, made by VIA? I hope they didn't change the CPU mid-way with one of their own.

Edit: In their PR they say it's a "VIA WonderMedia ARM 11 SoC".

<http://apc.io/files/2012/05/PR120522-APC-Final.pdf>

<comment> excuse-me ARM is a core design, there are no processors made by ARM - they only sell the IP. You can have an Apple ARM or a Samsung ARM or in this case a VIA ARM

This entire machine is made by VIA who also make the CPU. VIA are more famous for making low power x86 clones but that's nothing to do with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like they are hiding part of the cost in shipping. They are even charging $30 to deliver to Asia.

</comment><comment><USER7> Carries a $38 shipping charge for US/Canada/Europe

<comment><USER8> They just announced the preorder, might be worth waiting for suppliers to sell them on their behalf in the rest of the world.

<comment> excuse-me It might be one of those under $49 for headline and customs (tax+duty)but we make the money on the $50 shipping.

But since you can buy 7" resistive tablets for <$70 inc shipping from all the online chinese stores this shouldn't be too difficult to bring in a screen and battery-less device at this price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was going to order until I realized it was actually going to be $87 not $49. This is only the first of many of these devices that should be coming soon

<comment><USER4> I did the same. There's something odd about shipping costing 40% of the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone aware of an inexpensive place to pick up a small touchscreen LCD?

APC, paired with a small touchscreen would be very useful in many situations.

</comment><comment><USER11> That's not a computer that's a cardboard box. It would probably be more effective to show a rendering + screen shots. They're not selling a box they're selling a computer.

<comment><USER12> <http://apc.io/about/>

There you go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> besides small form factor, I care about power consumption:

[1] consumes 4 watts when operating at idle power and 13.5 watts at maximum load.

[1] <http://apc.io/faq/what-is-the-power-consumption-of-apc/>

</comment><comment><USER14> I can't remember why I bookmarked and signed up for their pre-order alert... Why do I want to spend ~$100 on a dumbed down *nix device? Note: I am a mobile developer too but...my Asus Transformer was only moderately more expensive...

<comment><USER5> The only useful application for this I'd say is if something in your old PC died, and instead of buying parts for it, you could buy this, and make it live longer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't actually see an Image of the device itself on the site.

<comment><USER16> Images are at <http://apc.io/> at the top of the page.

Based on the description, I don't think it comes with a case:

"APC integrates memory, storage, and a full set of consumer I/O features in a small footprint Neo-ITX motherboard that can be connected to a TV or monitor."

<comment><USER17> You're right; no case.

"APC includes the system (with O/S) and a 13.5W, 9V/1.5A power adaptor. Case is not included."

<http://apc.io/faq/what-is-included-in-apc/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The box hints at the size of the power brick. Yuck.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm getting a 404 on apc.io.

</comment><comment> excuse-me The first company that made something like this which worked 'out of the box' with YouTube, Netflix, BBC, Skype and sold for $50 (ie $100 at Worst Buy) would do very well.

There are a lot of TV shows being watched on iPads because hooking up the big screen TV to a computer is too much effort / inconvenient for 'normal' people.

<comment><USER3> What you just described is Google TV (Logitech Revue). It's Android 3.0, works "out of the box" with YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Video apps preinstalled and most every streaming site other than Hulu. No Skype but it did include its own video chat app. And it was $99 at Best Buy.

The product was a commercial failure. Logitech discontinued it last year. It's still available in some stores and online but once the stock is gone, it's gone.

<comment><USER20> It wasn't $99 at bestbuy, it was $300 when it was released, which is a big part of why it failed. [http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/08/logitech-revue- with-googl...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/08/logitech-revue-with-google- tv-review/)

Also it's still not $99, it's going for $150 new [http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Companion-Google-Keyboard- Con...](http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Companion-Google-Keyboard- Controller/dp/B0040QE98O)

<comment><USER3> > It wasn't $99 at bestbuy, it was $300 when it was released

It was also $99 at Best Buy. It wasn't successful at that price either. Today's iPhone sales aren't determined by its initial pricing in 2007.

> Also it's still not $99, it's going for $150

That's a 3rd party seller listing because Amazon is sold out. Amazon has it refurbished for $99, which is probably just old stock stores sent back to Logitech, which they sent back out for sale with "Now with Android 3.0" stickers added to the boxes.

Even if it's not, it's essentially the same price as pre-ordering this mystery box, yet comes with and does much more.

<comment><USER20> The OP of this thread said that a ready-to-go box selling @ $50 would sell like pancakes. You mentioned the Logitech Revue as having already been that, but you are completely wrong, it was never $99 at bestbuy, it was $299, then $249 and then discontinued.

More proof here that Logitech didn't get that ~$300 was too high a price point for something like this [http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/29/logitechs- disappointing-q...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/29/logitechs- disappointing-q4-results-not-helped-by-poor-revue-s/)

The Logitech Revue never retailed at $99 like you are trying to pass off as being true, sure now that they are discontinued you can find them refurbished on Amazon at that price but it's not the same thing and doesn't rebut the OPs point.

<comment><USER3> What an asshole. I do not appreciate being called a liar by an egotistical fool passing off his own misinformation as a correction. I have said nothing untrue or dishonest. Yours is one of the most angering posts I've read on HN in 4+ years.

The Revue retailed for $99 new for almost a year, since mid 2011, until stores ran out of stock. Here's the announcement direct from Logitech's VP, Digital Home Group, about the retail price drop to $99 at all stores:

<http://blog.logitech.com/2011/07/31/logitech-revue-now-99/>

Best Buy carried it at $299, $249, $129, and $99 all in new condition. The $99 price was in early 2011, raised to $129 in November 2011, and dropped back to $99 before going out of stock. You can find these price points in Google through mentions on sites like Slickdeals that tracked the price drops.

Sears carried it for $99. Newegg carried it for $99. I'm sure other stores did too. You can still buy it new for $99 from TigerDirect.

Next time you feel compelled to call someone out as a liar, be damned sure you're actually right about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [http://apc.io/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/apc- screenshots/s...](http://apc.io/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/apc- screenshots/settings.jpg)

Come on guys, get serious.

</comment><comment><USER22> to call a low-end x86 box with 2GB NAND a PC?

<comment><USER23> It's not x86. ARM11.</comment></comment>


How software-defined radio could revolutionize wireless - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/how-software-defined-radio-could-revolutionize-wireless/

<comment><USER2> An article on SDR, and no mention of the RTL2832? :(

</comment><comment><USER3> All this talk of low transmission at many frequencies reminds me of ultra- wide-band wireless... whatever happened to that?

</comment><comment><USER4> I think SDR is a really good idea, but has two major stumbling blocks: 1) it makes government control of the airwaves trickier (IE removes some technical obstacles to misuse), and 2) major military contract failure involving emergency/terrorist multi-agency communication.

</comment><comment><USER5> Buy one while you can.</comment>


Write code like you just learned how to program - <AUTHOR> http://prog21.dadgum.com/87.html <comment><USER2> The author here is talking about the importance of plowing ahead with a vision, but the title initially made me think of something else.

Now that I've been programming for over a decade professionally, I've accumulated a lot of practical experience. On balance this makes me a better programmer, but it also makes me worry more about everything: maintenance, bugs, version upgrades, etc. Wrestling with all possible issues can be paralyzing. Often it's better to just get something done, even if your future self will claim how much better it have been if it was done "right" in the first place.

<comment><USER3> I think you hit what the author was talking about, which is cranking out code so that it works (for whatever goal, in the case the author describes, user experience), not necessarily so that the code is good.

I learned Japanese, but when speaking it, I'm often hesitant. I used to hang out a lot with native speakers when I was younger, and there seems to be nothing middle-aged Japanese guys love more than seeing young men drink. After a few drinks, you stop second-guessing yourself, and so when speaking, words just came out, and my coworkers began laughing when, after I had spent all day stuttering and pausing, I would start spitting out fluid sentences. (A few more and I became unintelligible again, but for different reasons than hesitance; this was just as amusing to them.)

Coding is the same. Writing a small script, a prototype, or a little program for fun (or on the peak of the "Ballmer curve"), you don't think so much about structure and cleanliness, and you write the minimal amount that gets the job done, even if it's a hairy mess, and leave the editing pass for later (if ever). It's essentially the main tenet of Worse is Better camp and the Agile methodology: make it work as soon as you can.

I've worked at startups and large companies, and at both types of place, I've seen huge codebases, properly engineered and sometimes representing decades of man-hours, get scrapped before launch because they were wrong. I've also seen horrible code that ignored every good idea about building software that survived years. Personally, I have a bunch of code that is embarassing to look at, written as quick hacks, that has survived and done its job for years because it didn't try to understand the problem, just solve it.

Not that structure is bad or that engineering is wrong, but it seems to be independent of a program's survivability and its utility. In fact, Worse is Better seems to produce code that is more adaptable because its structure ignores edge cases that may turn out unimportant in the real world, so when unanticipated but important edge cases come up, the code is less rigid and can be adapted.

I think this lack of second guesses and of worrying about what doesn't matter for the problem at hand is exactly what the author is talking about. In terms of long-term maintenance, a prototype is cheap to build and easy to scrap; if it doesn't get scrapped and replaced, well...there will always be a project that junior programmers can cut their teeth on before subjecting a clean codebase to a kid fresh out of school.

<comment><USER4> I aim for the best of both worlds - blast through the coding when you're at the top of the world; then, once it all works, go back and clean it up and make it pretty. IME, unless you're never ever going to see the code again, it's well worth the time spent.

Of course, not everyone is willing to pay for #2. "It's already done, isn't it?"

:(

<comment><USER3> That's what my strategy is. "Get it working, then get it working right, then get it working fast." The "get it working" part is where you start to be able to tell whether or not you've solved the right problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _It's extremely difficult to be simultaneously concerned with the end-user experience of whatever it is that you're building and the architecture of the program that delivers that experience. Maybe impossible._

Layperson who's never seen it: "Impossible"

Practitioner who's becoming better: "Extremely difficult"

Expert: "We do this all the time. What's the big deal?"

 _I think the only way to pull it off is to simply not care about the latter. Write comically straightforward code, as if you just learned to program, and go out of your way avoid wearing any kind of software engineering hat--unless what you really want to be is a software engineer, and not the designer of an experience._

I know that OP meant well, but I think this is about the worst advice I've ever seen here. A little background...

I have reviewed or maintained the code of thousands of other programmers, and I've encountered maybe a couple dozen I'd actually hire and about 5 I'd consider as technical co-founders. What's the biggest difference? Until today, I wasn't sure how to verbalize, but now, I think a good description would be those who appear to take OP's advice and those who know better...

AFAIC, there's is a close correlation between good code and user experience. There's a close correlation between readable code and maintainable code. There's a close correlation between expertise and precision to detail _throughout_. And perhaps most of all, there's a close correlation between something built properly to stand the test of time and _long term_ user satisfaction.

If you want to learn a hobby, develop a passion, or really dig deep, by all means, follow OP's advice and just code it. Sometimes that's simply the best way to understand what goes on under the hood and learn what's possible once you learn the right way to build things. _Once you learn the right way to build things._

But, please, please, please, leave your experiments on your own hard disk where they belong. You may have thought that those bleeding pixels were cool, but your name will be cursed by the poor souls who forever have to maintain your mess.

<comment><USER6> > your name will be cursed by the poor souls who forever have to maintain your > mess.

That's fine as long as it generated jobs.

<comment><USER7> This is the broken window fallacy [1]. If the company didn't have to pay developers to maintain bad code, they could invest that money in something more economically useful, like new products.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy>

<comment><USER8> Unless they went out of business while trying to perfect the code instead of releasing any kind of product.

<comment><USER9> There is a vast stretch of appropriate solutions between the maintainability hell of "hardcode the coordinates of every pixelchange in your animation" and perfect code.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely. Let's not fall into false dichotomies here.

Yes, we developers sometimes focus on making the code perfect, beyond the point where there's an actual business case. So we need to be reminded that the code serves the business, not vice versa.

But really. Bad enough code is a liability to the business. You can't add features to make the customers happy, you get bugs you don't understand, it runs really slowly, etc.

The real trick is determining, with an intelligent conversation between developers and business people, what's good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In any creative endeavor, the largest barriers to completion are internal. The creator gets tired, loses interest, and never completes the vision.

The author is saying that getting something out is better than having a beautiful, difficult, half-completed and abandoned lump. It's really the same admonition as the ones to build the minimum viable product, or not to worry about premature optimization. Don't do work that isn't necessary! Every bit of unnecessary work increases the chance of total failure.

In the early stages, your biggest obstacle is getting SOMETHING, ANYTHING, out and working. We tell writers: sit down and write. We should tell programmers: sit down and program. Well, stand, if you don't want your back to ache.

</comment><comment><USER12> Obviously, a new programmer's code will not be as good as an experienced programmer's. I think the important lesson here is to "write code". "like you just learned how to program" modifies "write", not the code.

I found myself in the same position as the author. As I was going through a CS program, I thought back to my early years of writing code. Sure, those early programs didn't have computationally optimal algorithms or the current {design pattern|algorithm|language} of the week, but they were fun, and I got stuff done.

Once I graduated, and now that I've been coding professionally for nearly 8 years, I find that the best way to keep that passion about code and not get encumbered by "how it's supposed to be done" is to read other peoples' code and work with really smart people who encourage you to be a better developer.

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I definitely agree with this. Knowing a lot more about software than when I was a middle-school/high-school kid makes me a better programmer, but vastly increases the startup energy. When I wrote mIRC scripts to do something I wanted my client to do, or some Perl scripts to maintain my Home Page, the startup energy was nearly zero, and I didn't think about alternative technologies, architectures, the "right" way to do things, APIs, extensibility, etc. I just wrote some hackish thing, then when I couldn't extend it any more, I rewrote parts to fix it. Ugly and unmaintainable, but time-to-ship was like a day.

I guess the trick is combining some aspects of those approaches. I find it hard to do: it's now so _obvious_ to me when I'm writing ugly and unmaintainable code that's Not Doing It Right that it's almost painful to make myself do it anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Understanding that a "concise, fast, scalable and maintainable" code is not always superior to "complex, slow, unscalable and unmaintainable" code is a big learning for me over the years. There are tons of "web developers" out there who know some PHP and are charging clients with real money to write really, really bad code for their exotic plants website. They can write their crappy code because they're the only developer and they're only working on some random exotic plants website that gets 500 visitors a day and has 2 database tables with 50 rows. Not that big of a dal. At that point it doesn't matter if they don't have indexes in their tables or know what indexes even are. The single developer is cheap to hire and for the most part get the job done. Clients are happy, developer is happy.

Where code like the skull dripping blood or the exotic plants website breaks down is when you try to extend the codebase, scale it or handle more users. It's going to fall flat on its face and you're likely going to have to start over or refactor large portions of the code. That does happen sometimes, but at that point you probably understand your problem domain enough to know what the right features are and rewrite it anyways. So it's not always a bad thing. But when you do the rewrite, you should hire the people who know what they're doing and can write "concise, fast, scalable and maintainable" code.

<comment><USER15> Complex, slow, unscalable and unmaintainable code in a shipping product beats a concise, fast, scalable and maintainable unfinished design.

This is not a strict dichotomy, of course. But it's a dictum well worth remembering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a major exception that needs to be stated here. If you're writing anything with security implications -- anything that handles users' valuable personal data, particularly financial -- you had damn well better know what you're doing and think about it carefully. If your site gets hacked and credit cards get stolen, your users will have a crappy experience, no matter how spiffy your site is otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is great advice. I often catch myself not writing bad code by not writing any code at all. That's just being chicken.

<comment><USER18> There's no shame in that. It's called "fear" and can be overcome by research or just forging ahead blindly. I prefer the research method. It's a lot slower, but I feel much better about the results when I get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sometimes when I'm in 'idea mode' I like to just plow ahead and get something running even if the code is crappy. It gives me a chance to see the idea in action. I then go back and re-implement the idea with the appropriate code structure, unit tests, etc.

My first pass is really about proving out the idea, learning about the domain, and finding any gotchas. The second pass is about using my experience from the first pass to create a clean, maintainable base.. something that I can come back to in a month and be able to maintain, enhance, and deploy without having to relearn everything again.

</comment><comment><USER20> This sounds as if he's in favour of the skull programmer's output. I've seen the skull methodology used in practice in businesses, and it invariably results in disaster (i.e. angry bosses/employees and disappointed or fleeing customers). If your code is unmaintainable it may be ok for a brief demo, but beyond that it only causes grief.

</comment><comment><USER21> From reading some of these comments, it seems like a few people have missed the point the author was trying to make.

The point was not to write better code or to write code fast, it was that a 'good' programmer is focused on writing better code, not on what the user ends up seeing/experiencing (which at the end of the day is the important part). In the author's case, he focused on the wrong thing and ended up with a comparatively boring looking animation, despite having superior code.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of the "Curse of Knowledge" written about in Built to Stick.

Example: while working on a client's app, I spent two hours cobbling together a jQuery plugin to vertically align some dynamic navigation (sometimes the labels were one line, other times two or three). The project manager walked up and in five seconds said: "I made a website a while ago, I think you can vertically align table cells." Three minutes later, the nested table worked perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER23> Well, i'm not sure about that. Aren't we expected to be professionals and act like ones on any given job? Should we just eschew Knuth and express ourselves? Don't think so.

OTOH, it seems like something is clearly wrong here since, we are having a tough time being professional and working with the current crop of languages, tools, technologies, etc and in the same time, fully expressing our vision while enjoining our work.

<comment><USER24> IMO, the text is not about personal expression, but about "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." ("the better is the enemy of the good"; Voltaire), aka "real artists ship" (Jobs)

Most beginning programmers will see few, if any, bears on the road ahead of them. That makes it easier for them to just move to the goal line.

Of course, good expert programmers will be able to see which bears actually are on the road, and plan for evading them, and not any other bears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25>
        It's like having a song idea and learning to play an instrument so you can make it real.

This is a good analogy, perhaps better than the author realises. The way we learn to program tends to be nothing like the way music is taught, but it would be more effective if it were.

Just as it's important to be able to nail scales through repetition, it's valuable to be able to type effortlessly, and to enter in patterns without thinking. Think of programmers who - when confronted by a linked list scenario - mindlessly hammer in what's needed.

Repetitive drilling of those patterns is a good mechanism for improving programming skill. Yet we tend not to think about learning programming this way. Think of that time recently where you struggled to get something working, and now when you need the pattern you just copy-and-paste from there. How many of us can reliably hammer out a socket server interface without it causing any cognitive load?

<comment><USER9> I don't think that would be a very effective way of teaching. The hard part of programming is usually not writing things like linked lists, but the ability to decompose a real world problem into sufficiently small parts that can be solved by writing down some common patterns. Repetitive learning of patterns won't help at all with developing this skill and may very well scare off students because it becomes boring very quickly.

Unlike playing an instrument, programming is not dependend on muscle-memory skills to produce adequate performances, hence repetition is of limited use while studying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This was nice to read. I am teaching myself to program at the moment, just so I can build MVPs of some of the ideas I have.

I doubt I'll ever be a great programmer, but that's not really my goal anyway. I only hope to build something that needs to be rebuilt due to scaling problems. :)

</comment><comment><USER27> Architecture is why we refactor.

Just build your vision - especially when you're stretching with unfamiliar tools and languages.

Then go back and pay off your technical debt.

<comment><USER28>
      Architecture is why we refactor

I sincerely disagree with this point of view. To me, 'architecture' consist of exactly all those aspects of an application that you can _not_ change by a mere refactoring. There are parts of an application's design that are much harder to change, after the fact, than others.

If you've built your Japanese pagoda from wood and rice-paper and you decide afterwards you're really going to need a concrete foundation and some central steel columns to tie your pagoda to it, you're basically going to have to rebuild it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This advice has been my experience building my app. I have a CS degree, but I never did much programming after - I went more into product management.

However, now that I am building my own app, I have forced myself to learn the entire stack (from Rails to JS and beyond).

I sometimes look at other people's code and compare what they did in 1 line, to what I did in a block of 10 lines and wonder when I will be able to write elegant code like that. But I have learned to console myself, that at the end of the day, for this first release, it doesn't matter what the code looks like. Just so long as it isn't slow and the user has a good experience (i.e. things behave the way they expect it to), then I am doing a good job.

The perfectionist in me hates leaving it like that (I want to refactor every chunk until it is completely optimized), but the realist in me knows that I only have X amount of time to complete.

Thanks for posting this, because now I don't feel like I am doing a major disservice to my users by programming like the n00b I am.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think what could be taken from article is: write simple code. However it does not entitle you to write sloppy code.

Often naive algorithms and shortcut solutions work great. But make them so that when you actually need to replace them you just unplug them and replace with something better.

</comment><comment><USER31> Kent Beck, the creator of XP, mentioned something really similar a couple of months ago on his "Flight of a startup" posts:

<http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=252>

<http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/blog/?p=251>

</comment><comment><USER32> The classic paper 'Worse is better' by Richard P. Gabriel explains this point in a deeper way than this blog entrance.

</comment><comment><USER33> Whoa, I'm really glad I read that. I've always had this lingering worry that my being completely new to coding, and my tendency to learn by doing instead of reading a book... any book, would surely prevent me from finding success. It's just really easy to get sucked into coding. The first thing anyone wants to do is learn how to make text a certain color or size, and then from a little CSS, everything is like a perfect stepping stone. HTML to PHP to Python. And even then, it's possible to get by on only coding what you need to, if you start with a good cms. So... I guess what I'm saying here is although I am glad and it's great that coding "like you just learned how to program" can be an asset, but if it's actually so easy to be one of those people that just learned how to program˚, shouldn't everyone be a little more worried about competition than they are? I know I feel a bit of a burning sensation under my ass each time I manage to cobble something awesome together, with 99% being someone else's freely available code and 1% being mine.

˚and by program, I guess I just mean building stuff.

Merry Christmas!</comment>


Show HN: ExhibitDay - <AUTHOR> https://www.ExhibitDay.com <comment><USER2> I see a lot of design and features here cribbed directly from my company, EventGeek.com. Why don't you identify yourself online?

<comment><USER3> > Why don't you identify yourself online?

This got me googling a bit since I hate giving people my information that are not upfront with me about who they are.

Their trademark registration at [http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:wpr...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:wprmpa.2.1) lists "(APPLICANT) ExhibitDay, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda MARYLAND 20852" as the address. I also found that address at several of these weird online company listing sites:

[https://www.manta.com/c/mkxv6hz/exhibitday- inc](https://www.manta.com/c/mkxv6hz/exhibitday-inc) [http://ebusinesspages.com/ExhibitDay,-Inc._dziuo.co](http://ebusinesspages.com/ExhibitDay,-Inc._dziuo.co) [https://chevy-chase-md.opendi.us/E/93.html](https://chevy-chase- md.opendi.us/E/93.html)

That address seems to be a "virtual office" (aka paid fake address?) [https://www.regus.ru/en-ru/virtual-office/united- states/mary...](https://www.regus.ru/en-ru/virtual-office/united- states/maryland/bethesda/maryland-bethesda-democracy-plaza) \- definitely not signing up for that one.

<comment><USER4> > That address seems to be a "virtual office" (aka paid fake address?)

A virtual office is basically coworking, except you have your own assigned space (you still share everything else like printers, meeting rooms, etc). They can accept mail at that address and probably go to work there, so it's not "fake" perse.

<comment><USER3> Ah okay, thanks. In that case I just haven't heard of that provider before, finding only that result didn't really inspire confidence.

<comment><USER5> From Wikipedia :

Regus CEO: Mark Dixon (Jun 1, 2010–) Revenue: 2.535 billion GBP (2018)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm in no way affiliated to either site but this surely looks like an identical copy of EventGeek.com, showing similar text and images.

</comment><comment><USER7> This looks like a problem that can be solved using Notion/Coda, I'm wondering if it really makes sense to build specialized software for such collaboration problems anymore.

<comment><USER8> If it was just tasking and collaboration, no. But event management does have its own needs, in particular because the event happens in real life, so while anyone can write a registration system for an event, having the data from it tied into a printing solution so people get their badges and lanyards is a specific need of that industry, as well as capacity management for each session. Likewise, making the vendors have a positive experience, so they keep coming back and buying booths at your event. Then there is planning a speaker schedule, coordinating where and when each speaker, breakout session and vendor will have their space, coordinating with caterers, hotels, marketing departments, and all the other people that go into putting on a conference.

In short, a complete package is welcomed in that industry. And some already exist, so if these guys want to throw their hat into the ring, it is a proven market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Amazingly great content design. Clean, meaningful layouts.

I'm wondering how good the free plan would be for misuse to plan a vacation or attending a conference.

<comment><USER10> Thank you! The Lite/Free tier can be used not just for planning trade shows but any similar events that follow the trade show workflow.

<comment><USER11> So you're posting from "EDay" and "ExhibitDayAdmin"? Is it the same person?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We're a small business of <50 employees that does 60+ trade shows per year. I feel the pain and am happy to see that you're tackling this.

We currently use Trello for task assignment, GCal for scheduling, Certify for T&E and Salesforce for lead tracking -- without a great way to measure ROI. I'd pay $100/mo for your enterprise plan if it integrated existing CRM and T&E systems.

<comment><USER2> Check out EventGeek.com, this company is basically a copycat

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice looking site! I am not in the space but forwarded along to a friend who is.

<comment><USER10> Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Probably don't need the trademark in the logo

</comment><comment><USER15> Please update your contact info in your profile.

I'd like to talk to you about this.</comment>


PAN-demonium coming to CES - rickmerritt-eet http://confidential.eetimes.com/news-updates/4231297/Bluetooth-Zigbee-Ant-battle-at-CES New wrinkles in the competition between Bluetooth, Zigbee and Ant+ will emerge at the  big consumer show next month. <comment><AUTHOR> find out about RF battle over the next-gen remotes!</comment>


A death sentence for a young Chinese businesswoman chills entrepreneurs  - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/18560729 <comment><USER2> This Economist article paints a very different picture from the article below:

[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_920158...](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_9201582.htm)

Businesswoman gets death sentence for defrauding investors out of tens of millions of dollars vs. Businesswoman gets death sentence for fundraising

<comment><USER3> Well, we know which of the two publications has prepublication review of content by the Communist Party of China.

<comment><USER4> You make it sound like the Chinese source is not to be trusted, and you may be right. But this story shows that the Economist is just as trustworthy as any Chinese communist sources (i.e., not very trustworthy).

The Chinese source states: "The money was used for Wu's personal consumption and in paying back the loans and operation costs of her company, said the court."

Now this is a quote from the court which is something that should have been available to the Economist. Nevertheless the Economist made it sound that she was only persecuted for accepting financing from unofficial sources, not that she was doing anything improper with the financing.

A death sentence for running a ponzi scheme sounds like a bit much (but then again I am against most death sentences) but it is a lot less unjust than a death sentence for only accepting financing from unofficial sources, which is what the Economist makes it sound like.

<comment><USER5> "Nevertheless the Economist made it sound that she was only persecuted for accepting financing from unofficial sources, not that she was doing anything improper with the financing."

I can't agree with that. I read only the Economist article before coming to the comments here, and I managed to figure out that she was being charged with active fraud. I figured it out from things like mentioning a promise of an 80% return on investment, or possibly lending out money she received at usurious interest rates.

I think you may be missing the point of the last paragraph, which is that the plea bargain is to plead guilty to the crime of raising funds in the way Chinese entrepreneurs have been doing, not that she actually did it. She didn't, which why it's a plea bargain, but it's concerning that what she bargained to is a death-penalty crime, apparently.

To be fair, this article seems to be a little shorter than it should be; it requires closer reading than it should. And I'd also point out that she still appears to be getting the death penalty for that charge, which is worth reacting to.

<comment><USER6> IIRC, financial fraud that makes the country (e.g., from its citizens/organizations) lose a lot of money is a capital offense in China. And also everything you own will be confiscated to pay back to the country.

(If you ignore the "China is Evil" bit for a minute) It kind of makes sense: you steal money from a country, maybe go to jail for a bit, leave the country, reunited with all your stolen money. Not so good.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but they're going to execute her.You get that? She going to die.

<comment><USER8> Playing devil's advocate here -- I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. However ...

From the government's point of view, why should crimes of violence like murder or aggravated sexual assault warrant a harsh punishment, but economic crimes that affect vastly greater numbers of people receive more lenient treatment?

Given that we can approximate a lifetime's productive labour to, say, $1M, a fraud involving multiple millions in stolen money amounts to alienating multiple life's worth of work. Steal $500M and you've done the equivalent of wiping out five hundred lifetimes' work.

If your perspective is that the judicial system exists to punish crimes against the state, then a $500M fraud is considerably worse than the actions of a serial killer.

(That's not the judicial theory we run on here in Scotland, but it's rather closer to the way things work in one-party states.)

<comment><USER9> Your point makes perfect sense if one is of opinion that human life can be pegged to monetary value at some exchange rate. And this is indeed the founding assumption at which many totalitarian regimes operate.

<comment><USER10> _Your point makes perfect sense if one is of opinion that human life can be pegged to monetary value at some exchange rate._

If you hold any other opinion, you are fooling yourself. A lot of people will go to great length to deny it, but if you think about it unprejudiced, you'll have to accept it. There are just too many instances where spending amount X of money can save a life and people make the conscious decision not to do so because X is more than they can or want to afford. Usually they'll rationalize or otherwise hide this reason (or even the fact that they even made a decision), but it's there.

 _And this is indeed the founding assumption at which many totalitarian regimes operate._

How does this have _anything_ to do with totalitarian regimes?

<comment><USER9> > If you hold any other opinion, you are fooling yourself. A lot of people > will go to great length to deny it, but if you think about it unprejudiced, > you'll have to accept it.

Now this is a promising beginning. Put that Randian tone aside if you want to be taken seriously.

> There are just too many instances where spending amount X of money can save > a life and people make the conscious decision not to do so because X is more > than they can or want to afford.

We're not talking about saving someone's life in varying circumstances. We are talking about cut-off figure that makes e.g. financial crime punishable by death. Those societies that practice it, tend to be totalitarian, with the conversion rate to e.g. RMBs or Soviet Roubles written down in criminal law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't know.

80% returns?

Really?

She was able to get 80% returns?

GUARANTEED?

This lady kind of sounds like a potential Madoff who got caught early.

Yes, she may be totally innocent. That is one of many possibilities. Having mentioned that... man...

80%?

guaranteed?

Trading Futures?

Maybe the punishment is a bit harsh, but it really does seem she was not totally on the up and up.

And secondly, what kind of a person gives their money to someone promising 80% returns risk-free? Who did she raise this money from?

I mean let's say you're listening to a financial services guy give a pitch over Evian and roasted sweet potatoes with cumin. Right. He says, "I'll get you 80% yearly on your money! Guaranteed! Risk-free!"

Well at that point you and I probably look at each other, and just leave. Who would believe that?

<comment><USER12> "A bit harsh" is a lot of an understatement. They're talking about _killing her_.

<comment><USER13> How is execution different than 150 years in prison, aside from the chance to be exonerated later? Madoff's life is just about as thoroughly destroyed as Wu's. They will both die in prison.

I dislike capital punishment for several reasons, in particular the greater potential to be applied falsely, but I do not feel that Madoff's sentence is substantially less harsh.

<comment><USER14> I think the convicted can answer this question better than I. They almost always prefer to keep living.

<comment><USER15> It'd be interesting to see numbers on how many people serving a life sentence would choose to commit suicide if materials for a painless suicide were readily available. Prisons actively attempt to keep people from doing so, and it's apparently frequent enough to be a major problem at some prisons.

<comment><USER16> Depression can be a factor here.

<comment><USER17> I think depression comes with the punishment of life imprisonment, so the ? about the availability of suicide is still valid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does this mean angel investing is illegal in China. I am not sure what "raising and pooling money outside the official system" really means.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good question. That seems like important context. What does the "official system" consist of, exactly, and why do so many entrepreneurs apparently raise funds outside of it?

<comment><USER19> Think of it as the wild west of financial system. People can skew the rules or laws by setting up saving and loan "banks" with promise of high return. Of course these are Ponzi scheme with the latecomers paying off the earlier ones, and eventually the "bank" collapses and the "entrepreneurs" simply disappear while many people lose their money.

So many "entrepreneurs" raising funds outside of the rule and law because they can't satisfy the financial regulations that protect the lay investors. And financial scams are lucrative?

She has "raised" hundreds of millions in this case. People losing the their life savings are furious. I'm sure in this case, these people have asked for her head. People who have had millions to start with are usually in the position of power, and they seem to get their wish this time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What strikes me as odd is that she pleaded guilty and helped broaden the investigations and still got a death penalty. This pretty much removes any incentive for a guilty plea and for helping an investigation.

I think it's fairly reasonable to consider whether she is facing capital punishment for financial fraud or for having helped broaden the investigation in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER20> >and still got a death penalty.

The death penalty alone is better than execution of you and your kids, or better than torture and execution, etc..

<comment><USER16> I don't think those are options under the Chinese penal code.

<comment><USER20>
      I'd be surprised if there wasn't some form of prosecutetorial discression that couldn't overlook your children's involvment in your business dealings.  Think of Madoff's kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is horrifying and I don't even know where to start examining the problem. Firstly, how do we trust any news source on a case like this when the press is controlled by the accuser? Second, even if the sentence is 'legally correct,' when does the threat of a human rights violation become too important to ignore - should countries be pressured to abolish death sentences (at least) for non-violent crimes? Even if the death penalty is the 'official' punishment to fit the crime, certainly it's a big problem if the actual delivery of that sentence is relegated to a minority of cases in which the government is motivated to prosecute. Of course selective prosecution is a problem with any legal system, but when the sentence is death it is all the more important to monitor cases through a transparent system. It doesn't seem that this kind of transparency is in place. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/23/business/main67982...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/23/business/main6798205.shtml) see: "...the judicial system is overly secretive in deciding on death penalty cases." [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2014070,00.htm...](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2014070,00.html) see: "...opaqueness of its legal system."

<comment><USER21> [@PG and the hacker news team: I think it's pretty important to see some indication of supporting votes on these comments. Please keep considering if you want to bring back that feature in some form. Thanks!]

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _Ultimately, she was convicted of "illegal fund-raising" for, the court concluded, raising 773m yuan from illicit sources._

What does this MEAN, I wonder? Money laundering? Or?

</comment><comment><USER23> Hey guys, try and follow the laws of the country in which you live.

Even if you think it's unjust, you can't change it if you're dead.

<comment><USER7> What if the laws make criminals of ordinary, innocent things. This is pretty much the case in China(and many countries actually) its impossible to live without commiting some kind of crime. Thats how they get you.

<comment><USER24> _Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent_

[http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target- Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target- Innocent/dp/1594032556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302971110&sr=8-1)

Also read any of James Bovard's books; _Lost Rights_ , _Freedom in Chains_ , _Feeling Your Pain_ , _Terrorism and Tyranny_ , _The Bush Betrayal_ , _Attention Deficit Democracy_ , or Vin Suprynowicz books _Send in the Waco Killers_ and _Ballad of Carl Drega_ or his column on the Las Vegas Review- Journal, <http://www.lvrj.com/columnists/Vin_Suprynowicz.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> China. So close, yet so far away.

<comment><USER25> Off-topic:

The new comment system where votes next to comment aren't shown anymore is quite interesting. Over the course of a day my comment received about 10 up- votes and now an equal amount of down-votes.

My comment was the first to comment made on this post and in the first two hours or so my comment received all it's up-votes. Then, slowly over the next 24 hours it began to sink.

I think the reason my comment received the down votes is because over time more elaborate comments where made that made my comment look more and more insignificant and out of place.

Now I don't think my comment was great and deserved any up-votes what so ever, but it's interesting to see how not showing the votes next to a comment makes such a huge difference and I don't believe my comment would have been down- voted if the 10 up-votes would have been shown next to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Wow, and just when I thought death for mass murderers was a bit too cruel...

</comment><comment><USER27> Please correct me if I am wrong. Basically she is dying because she defrauded a bunch of rich dudes and created employment opportunities. The rich dudes are pissed and so she is now facing a death sentence? This is pretty screwed.

Sending her to jail is one thing but death sentence. That is just idiotic.

</comment><comment><USER28> Barbaria.

Edit: I shouldn't attempt irony on the interwebz. Barbaria was said with a wink at history.</comment>


Wotsit.org: The Programmer's File and Data Resource - <AUTHOR> http://www.wotsit.org

<comment><USER2> I like your site; it's a good idea.

imho though I think you still need to use another css template. Other than that it seems useful to me</comment>


A "Perfect Storm" Moment for Multibillion-Dollar Open Source Companies - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/03/25/a-perfect-storm-moment-for-multibillion-dollar-open-source-companies/ <comment><USER2> >The open source movement arose when developers realized they could create software in a community-driven environment, letting everyone add knowledge in return for sharing in the collective product.

The author is simplifying history here to serve his own purpose. The open source movement was born out of the free software movement that had been around for 15 years prior. This rebranding was done in order to market free software to businesses by removing the ethical and political arguments and replacing them with technical ones.

>The tenet of open source has always been to give away the "open core" for free, and then charge for additional features.

I disagree. I don't see many admirers of "open core" model. The community was so happy that MySQL became "open core" that distributions have started switching to MariaDB.

<comment><USER3> The term "open source" was created by Eric Raymond (ESR)[1] on 8 February 1998 when Mozilla was in the process of making its source code public. This has been described in detail in the book 'Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution'[3].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond#Open_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond#Open_source)

[2] [http://www.catb.org/esr/open-source.html](http://www.catb.org/esr/open- source.html)

[3] [http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/raymond2.html](http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/raymond2.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have not seen the term "perfect storm" used to mean something positive like this - perhaps this is normal? (sorry, no comment on article comment, just was perplexed by headline).

<comment><USER5> From some spot-checking, it looks like it's minority usage, but not too rare.

Looking at the top 10 or so stories that come up with [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=perfect+storm) I see a few that use it in the positive sense: "Being Santa: a perfect storm of fun", "What the perfect storm of cloud, Big Data and the Internet of Things...", "A perfect storm has been brewing for palladium this month which has pushed the metal impressively north-bound..."

<comment><USER6> The Wikipedia's page on it has an interesting origin[1]:

        The Oxford English Dictionary has published references going
        back to 1718 for "perfect storm," though the earliest citations
        use the phrase positively, as in a "perfect storm" of applause.

It also notes that the phrase,

        is nearly synonymous with "worst-case scenario," although the
        latter carries more of a hypothetical connotation.

The phrase is relatively rare in normal British English usage, and it's usually used in the ``worst-case scenario'' sense. To me, the word `storm' brings with it a negative connotation, but I suppose it's logical enough, albeit a little strange, that it could be used to describe a positive set of circumstances.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> ... says a guy working for a company heavily invested in an OSS vendor. But please, dear reader, don't expect any bias or even wishful thinking.

(Disclaimer: I use OSS software heavily and admire it, but I'm always sceptical when I read statements like "The time is now to make money in open source")

<comment><USER6> At least in this case, he leads with the fact he has a financial interest in the field: ``At Index Ventures, we have been investing...''. Too many similar pieces either bury that important piece of information, or omit it entirely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I completely agree that open source is/has taken over the world - and that that is a fundamentally good thing for everyone on this planet.

I did notice some things that aren't quite right though so here are some comments from a Red Hat employee - though these are my opinions and not necessarily those of my employer.

> The tenet of open source has always been to give away the "open core" for > free, and then charge for additional features.

and

>Companies can try a simple version of an open source app for free, and if they like it, can pay for value-added enterprise features.

This is not actually true for the way Red Hat sells it's products, in fact we do something that is quite the opposite but far more powerful. All features are in our community projects like Fedora or JBoss Wildfly, these features might be a mix of whatever is the latest and greatest that people want as well as all the normal bits that you'd expect. When we make an enterprise ready product out of these community projects like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or JBoss Enterprise Application Server (EAP) our focus is actually on stability and longevity, in other words something that we can stand behind and support for up to 10 years or more! So we actually remove or don't pull in features from the project that aren't ready yet (which we know because we employ a lot of the professional engineers that are committers). We then have a rigorous testing process before releasing these enterprise ready products to our subscribers. One of the key bits that people don't understand is that once we release an enterprise product we will then back port from the latest and greatest community version all security and bug fixes for the supported life of the enterprise product.

Two things to note about this, the enterprise versions are open source as well and we follow an upstream first approach so bug fixes and security patches are applied to the upstream version as well as to the stable enterprise version so upstream has all the latest fixes BUT it also has all the latest features and changes so it's more like our R&D version that you can play with and do some development on but wouldn't be something we would stand behind for production environments.

I wanted to point this out as this is fundamentally different from the open core model you describe and which I seriously object to as an approach because it still locks you into the vendor who is selling you the extra bits.

> The first wave of open source leaders, including Red Hat, relied almost > entirely on the community to build their products.

I'm not sure this statement is entirely true, Red Hat has been a top committer to the Linux kernel and to the JBoss projects for many many years and in fact around half of our company are professional engineers working on open source projects!

<comment><USER9> > > The first wave of open source leaders, including Red Hat, relied almost > entirely on the community to build their products.

> I'm not sure this statement is entirely true

Red Hat is a good open source community citizen, and has contributed tons back, without a doubt. However... out of the total lines of code they distribute, if you start to consider Apache and the GNU tools, and various libraries, I wonder what the percentages look like? I think all things considered, it would reflect well on Red Hat for all they _have_ done, but still likely be a small-ish percentage.</comment></comment>