Google is giving out free Gmail stickers, send SASE to: - <AUTHOR> http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/get-your-gmail-stickers.html

<comment><USER2> It's somewhat ironic that you have to use snail mail to get a sticker for your favourite email app.</comment>


How to Save CNN from Itself - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/opinion/how-to-save-cnn-from-itself.html?src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article <comment><USER2> CNN used to be my absolute go to for news. However more and more, especially during and after this election their coverage has been biased, opinionated, and worse of all not as accurate and timely as others.

Anchors like Van Jones who push their own agenda, have really rubbed me the wrong way. So much so, that I've switched to the "dark side" Fox News and can say they as a whole provide higher quality news.

<comment><USER3> You think Fox News is less biased than CNN? I think that says more about you than CNN. Fox News outright lies and doesn't even cover major issues when they are harmful to their agenda. Fox spent years attacking Hillary for her private emails and yet I haven't seen one peep from them about Trump doing the same thing. All news sources are biased in some way, but Fox doesn't even count as a legit news source--it's a propaganda mill.

<comment><USER2> When was the last time you actually watched or visited Fox News? I used to feel the exact same way as you. I'm not saying Fox News is the gold standard, but they are way better than CNN.

<comment><USER3> I watch it almost daily just to see what "the other side" is saying and no it is not better. They ignore major news stories whenever it's inconvenient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with everything the article says. But of course, it's utter fantasy. _Especially_ under a Trump administration, I very much doubt we'll see conditions attached to mergers like this.

</comment><comment><USER5> the only way to save cnn at this point is to simply let it die. they have become worse than fox.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, they're begging the question of why they should be saved. Let bad businesses fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How do you save the NY Times from itself? Seems like they're in the same hole. Every country has strong public radio and tv, but in the US they are mostly run by private organizations with agendas. So why is this in the NY Times?

<comment><USER8> With government funding come government strings... :)</comment></comment>


Value of a social network user - <AUTHOR>

how do you put a value on the user of a site such as facebook? or even more so on plentyoffish.com? I'm number crunching a marketing strategy for a startup and wondering where i could find information on the return per user for big name sites? or is this confidential? <comment><USER2> You're basically asking "What's the net present value of the user?".

Let's say that the average user clicks 1 ad per day, and you get 5 cents per click, then each user is worth 5 cents per day. 5 cents * 365 = $18.25 in revenue per customer per year.

What's your cost? If you're paying $300k / year in salaries, Red Bull, website hosting and office rent to support a website that can handle 20,000 customers, then the cost per customer per year is $15.00.

...so your profit is $3.25 per customer per year.

What's the churn rate? If an average user lasts 2 years, then you're getting $6.50 in total profit per customer.

...except the profit for year two should be "discounted" by some factor (inflation, opportunity cost, risk, etc.). Call the first year $3.25 and the second year $2.50, perhaps.

So: a new customer is worth $5.75.

You can see all of the variables I used above - feel free to substitute your own numbers in.

</comment><comment><USER3> Start at your planned 'revenue event' and work your way backwards to your expected traffic volumes.

For example, if you have a plan to build a site with users and content, and your revenue plan is to sell T-shirts;

\- What percentage of checkout pages will be completed?

\- What percentage of tshirt page visitors will click the 'buy now' button?

\- What percentage of site visitors will click your promo to view the tshirt page?

\- How often will your users visit your site?

\- How many users will you have?

Selling Tshirts isn't the best revenue model, but you can follow these steps to build a model for anything.</comment>


Obama: A Bubble Sort is the Wrong Way to Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/business/02digi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

<comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=85461>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I had 2 different users from the same client call me today that their system was too slow. (Had been running beautifully for years.) There were both trying to do the same thing - sort customer orders in product sequence on the executive dashboard. 300 records - what was the problem?

2 things: 1) It was an internal bubble sort I had written years ago. 2) They both selected a year's worth of data.

Doh! I shoulda listened to Obama.

<comment><USER3> Unless you are doing hardcore systems programming, there is almost never a reason to write your own sort.

<comment><USER4> Where's the C library function for "sort the N-byte records in the file named 'foo' which is too large to fit into RAM"?

<comment><USER5> Perhaps not in libc but on my freebsd box /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/sort/sort.c delivers the goods if foo has newlines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the sorting algorithm I like best:

      data.sort()

</comment><comment><USER7> <http://youtube.com/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8>

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen That's a nice paywall they have set up.

<comment><USER8> Huh? The NYtimes is completely free with a login.

Use BugMeNot if you have to.

They quit charging for TimesSelect some time ago; now all of their archives for 150+ years are freely available online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbama :)</comment>


Ask HN: How much sleep do you get? - <AUTHOR> I'm curious how people are so energetic even when having 8hrs > of sleep. How much sleep are you getting and how does it affect your work? <comment><USER2> I run a small team. I have to be able to stay 1 page ahead of every type of developer so I can properly check their work. I get about 5 hours every night. I am usually fine but catch up a bit on the weekends and get the normal 8

</comment><comment><USER3> 7 at best but that's mostly because 2 kids. Note that in the past I couldn't operate without 7-8hrs sleep. Since I have kids, I can work on 6 :)

It's all relative.</comment>


The Tor Social Contract - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-social-contract <comment><USER2> > We will never implement front doors or back doors into our projects.

I hate the fact that this "front door" terminology is making it into the PR vernacular of a security product, especially in something as long-standing as this social contract is likely to be. By taking the line spoon fed by Tor Project adversaries, the project is validating the idea and putting it on equal cognitive footing.

<comment><USER3> Never heard about the term "front door" before. After checking up on it here: [https://www.justsecurity.org/16503/security-front-doors- vs-b...](https://www.justsecurity.org/16503/security-front-doors-vs-back- doors-distinction-difference/) , it seems to me front and back door are just synonyms, whereas opponents of the concept use "back door", and proponents use "front door" :D

<comment><USER4> They are the exact same thing from a security perspective, but the FBI uses front doot because it knows they don't _sound_ like synonyms for most people.

<comment><USER5> In that case it's likely good to include it here just for the sake of clarity. They could maybe quote "front doors" to indicate the sentiment of the grand- parent's comment.

> We will never implement back doors, "front doors" or "golden keys" into our > projects.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft developer reveals Linux is now more used on Azure than Windows Server - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-developer-reveals-linux-is-now-more-used-on-azure-than-windows-server/ <comment><USER3> Every few months we get another post like this, with a slightly different measure. Yes, lots of Azure workloads run Linux, and Microsoft makes it a priority. It's not news anymore.

At the same time, Azure itself runs largely on Windows servers in Service Fabric ([https://github.com/Microsoft/service- fabric](https://github.com/Microsoft/service-fabric)), so it's hard to count. With nested hypervisors as the normal architecture nowadays, this whole tally is pretty suspect.

But we (the tech community) never seem to get bored with the "Microsoft is eating humble pie on OSS" story. Maybe that's exactly what Microsoft deserves after so many years of big-bad-wolf behavior. Unfortunately it makes their real engineering and OSS feats hard for us to see or acknowledge.

Like Service fabric. Did you know that Microsoft built and open sourced an orchestrator that can manage tens if millions of nodes with totally diverse workloads (containers, VMs, and bare metal), nested hypervisors, and even nested orchestrators in a secure multi tenant context? That beats the crap out of kubernetes on a capabilities front, but it's not an easy story to sell. Or that Windows Hyper-V has done thin-VM/M container isolation on par with kata and firecracker for years? Or that many (if not most) Azure services are open source? You can run the entire azure stack on your home server closet if you like, especially including their biggest growth areas of kubernetes and ML/cognitive services. If you want an open source alternative to AWS, azure can be a real option.

I enjoy the historical irony of this as much as the next guy, but we really have to stop letting it blind us to the awesome things MS is doing that don't fit that narrative. Microsoft is benefiting mightily by adopting open source culture, code, and practices as fast as it can. And if we can get our heads out of our own self-righteous asses enough to upvote the stories, we can profit from it too.

<comment><USER4> Which orchestrator are you referring to? System Center in no way competes with kubernetes since it's lacking 90% of the features. Maybe I'm bad at googling, but I can't find what you're referring to.

Edit: I see the one you're referring to in that link, but again, it's not at all a comparison with kubernetes. It's easy at face value to say this one is better, but it's missing the point of kubernetes, which is extensibility, following standards, etc.

<comment><USER5> If you Google it you'll find several comparisons to k8s and others.

I looked into this a while back, and Service Fabric was a _clear_ winner over k8s, and resource use was a fraction of k8s too.

But, I felt it needed to gain community traction before I could commit to using it - knowing my luck, I'd build something and Microsoft would abandon it because k8s...

Kind of a chicken and egg problem, which is a shame really.

<comment><USER4> No, it was a clear winner for your use case. It's missing a significant amount of features from k8s, though, and if you don't need those, then great. But don't pretend they're comparable.

I think it's more fair to say the suit different use cases (an MS person on HN explicitly said this last year), rather than competing.

<comment><USER5> As I remember it, it was a clear winner with no caveats. But my memory is shit, so there is that.

What features do you believe it's missing?

<comment><USER4> Custom scheduler, a declarative API, the estimated of custom resources, many different filesystems natively supported, etc

<comment><USER5> By "scheduler", do you mean as in "decides which nodes to run on"?

You can build Service Fabric manifests with XML.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but from what I can tell in their documentation you cannot make the same level of decisions that you can with kubernetes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see a lot of government shops picking Azure because nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

But once they open up to the cloud I see a lot of people installing stuff like Shiney servers, Jupytr notebooks and other open source software on Linux servers that would never have been a starter in an enterprise environment.

<comment><USER7> The government department standardizes on Azure but all the young devs push for Linux servers so all their shiny toys work great.

Windows is truly dead on the cloud and has been for a decade. The only thing people use it for is self hosted exchange, and file servers and active domains - legacy stuff.

<comment><USER8> There is an entire parallel community of business IT, basically unknown and unintelligible to the Silicon Valley community, where the Microsoft server- side stack is as obvious a choice as Linux is in our world. You may even have some of it in your company. It's really amusing (and dysfunctional) when our projects require "Eng" and "Corp IT" to cooperate. We're both ostensibly computer professionals who select, write, and operate production services, yet to each side the other may as well be from Mars.

<comment><USER9> Like 10 years ago, I thought it was great when we garnered a client which was one those "Microsoft only" type shops, because I like C#/NET. But the only justification for using it was really "IT made us do it". And I saw how the IT leadership in these places were older people perhaps maybe fighting older political battles. In any case its been many years since I've stumbled across a pure Microsoft shop. I think Azure means they know they lost, but also have legacy business to support.

<comment><USER10> >But the only justification for using it was really "IT made us do it". And I saw how the IT leadership in these places were older people perhaps maybe fighting older political battles.

I've seen this happen too in predominantly Linux shops. In the early 2000s Microsoft worked hard to cultivate relationships with future IT leaders and those relationships have a way of enduring. Even if your CIO can't get everyone onto Windows they might still find a place for Office 365 without much time spent weighing up the alternatives.

<comment><USER11> IT made them do it for good reasons though. Managing a large number of users and workstations in an enterprise environment is one of the things that Microsoft stack stands out.

<comment><USER12> Pull the boundaries in. Provide all of the enterprise services through the web. Provide hardened VMs for those services that can't be migrated. Suddenly your workstations are thin clients, and it doesn't really matter anymore if someone decides they want BYOD.

Now you can get after the actual interesting problem of intellectual property theft and corporate espionage. Things which the firewalls of old did nothing to prevent but provide a layer of obfuscation.

<comment><USER13> It's naive to think that just because your production critical software is web based, you can just have everyone BYOD. That is asking for rampant malware on the company network, and targeted attacks that steals company secrets.

<comment><USER14> From the lens of a programmer it's definitely possible to do BYOD without any real danger to the domain.

They need access to a few webfrontends and be able to use their SCM server...

But in order to do that, they'll have to be able to test locally or have a really hardened access to their servers. Significantly harder than just forcing everyone on company hardware without root/admin access

<comment><USER13> Developers get special treatment, because the nature of their work often require them to have local admin access. But the majority of people do not need that, and if I'm in charge of company network and security, I would not allow anything but approved machines on the internal network.

<comment><USER14> > _Developers get special treatment, because the nature of their work often > require them to have local admin access._

That is _extremely_ rare at larger b2b enterprises

<comment><USER13> Each and every organization I've heard of that did that, reverted to give developers local admin pretty quickly because the requests to the IT administrators for every time a developer needed admin to install a required dependency, start whatever at admin to debug, change reg settings, test installations, ect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On Azure, a Windows VM instance tends to cost about 50% more than the equivalent instance running Linux,so it is a no brainer to use Linux if your application is operation system independent.

<comment><USER16> If I encounter an issue on Linux (that I can reproduce), I can investigate it to its root (sometimes in the kernel driver) and fix it (or find someone who has fixed it). On windows, I have only seen issues fixed either by reinstalling applications (mostly randomly) and praying or by using annoying work arounds. IMHO, the cost is higher in Windows.

<comment><USER17> This is a roundabout way of saying: "I know more about Linux's internals than Windows'." Essentially you're a power user of Linux and a consumer of Windows. I'm not sure that's Windows' fault.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I mean why doesn't everybody dig through the kernel sources on Windows when they encounter a bug like that?

The vast majority of Linux users will never poke around the source to the Kernel ferreting out a bug, but they do have the option. On Windows it's much harder to get access without being a Microsoft employee.

<comment><USER19> It does not end with the kernel. Of course it is possible to run proprietary software on Linux and OSS software on Windows, but I have rarely had to deal with proprietary software in Linux. That is only in small part because I avoid it.

I'm not a kernel hacker. But I have on occasion cracked open the source for some product on which I relied to find out why it was behaving contrary to my expections. Much more I have done that with a library upon which I was relying.

Many many times more often I have sought answers from authors or experts of a lib, etc. to clarify what I didn't understand from documentation.

All of this is easier and frendlier with open systems. MS is coloring itself more open recently, but they and the ecosystem built upon them and around them have a long way to catch up. From my perspective the gap is so large and so pervasive that I don't even bother kicking the tires any more. I don't know if MS will make it there in my productive lifetime. If they do, I think the ground will have to have shaken dramatically so many times that it will get my attention. So, I will continue to ignore them until then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a side note, maybe it's been covered before. Has anyone noticed that microsoft.com runs on Apache now?

[http://dpaste.com/3HTHQ96.txt](http://dpaste.com/3HTHQ96.txt)

<comment><USER21> Why would they bother paying nginx the outrageous price for their server?

<comment><USER22> Or use iis

<comment><USER23> Or use Kestrel, which should be able to be front facing. It does very well with speed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "major cloud provider uses linux more than windows"

Well, that's to be expected. Sorry, this is in the same category as "Huawei CTO uses iPhones" or "amount X of Google employees use Surface Pro". I don't quite get what the article is trying to tell me.

<comment><USER25> Those are extremely poor analogies. You listed two things entirely irrelevant to a business as comparisons to a key component to a business.

"Satya Nadella once used a linux computer" is the category of thing you listed.

"Apple building android phones" would be a better snalogy for this.

<comment><USER26> > "Apple building android phones" would be a better snalogy for this.

Not really. Apple selling Android phones at Apple Stores is probably the best analogy.

<comment><USER27> Apple opening an electronics market and selling washing machines, iPhones and Android Smartphones and a lot of other things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Windows VMs in Azure are significantly more expensive than Linux VMs because Microsoft still charges for the licenses. Only if your organization has already purchased a lot of them it can use the Hybrid benefit to get similar, but still higher prices.

Seems like a bad strategy for Windows Server in the long run, but they may have decided that it is already dead.

</comment><comment><USER29> I am on one hand glad that Linux is being adopted, but I am mostly sad.

We only have two operating systems now Windows and Linux. (MacOS for the desktop as well).

It becomes a mono culture, and it takes away healthy competition and innovation.

I want many more operating systems, not fewer.

I with MS would make it free to run Windows Server, (something they move towards with the CLI only version). In order to hopefully increase adoptation.

I dont think that will happen as long as MS has a lot of enterprise custoemrs who are paying huge for the Server licenses.

<comment><USER30> I want more "kinds" of operating systems. It is ripe time to look forward to building ones not based on Unix, files, forks and execs. I want to explore different ideas which were not tested because Unix model became popular.

There is a lot to explore on the side of Smalltalk machines, Oberon, Lisp Machines of old. As a developer, live programming language based environments is my kind of thing.

<comment><USER31> Sure, but an OS that can't run a browser (i.e. it's difficult to port to) is going to have a _massive_ adoption hurdle.

I was a big fan of the QNX demo floppy (1.44MB OS _with browser_ ), but that didn't lead to me using it on the desktop. [http://toastytech.com/guis/qnxdemo.html](http://toastytech.com/guis/qnxdemo.html)

<comment><USER32> It's too bad that web browsers are so complicated and expensive to port.

There might be room for something new and different that runs on it's own VM (like Smalltalk) and can use libraries on the host to get things that do not make sense re-implementing, like a web browser. If it gains sufficient traction, the work to move it to a more stripped down environment would be clearly worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Microsoftie here, a lot of Microsoft's own infrastructure is hosted on Windows Server instances.

Won't comment further than that, So Windows for server scenarios is certainly not dead.

<comment><USER34> I don't see how the article says that "windows server is dead". And Microsoft infrastructure is obviously running on windows, I don't think anybody expects otherwise.

<comment><USER33> People would misconstrue the increased usage of Linux VMs on Azure to assume Windows Server instances are no longer used for Server scenarios, which is not the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> My favorite part about Azure is that Microsoft shops are totally fine with spinning up a Debian install simply because the image is available.

</comment><comment><USER36> Prediction for the future: Microsoft will open source Windows but sell commercial support packages for it.

Windows server will be offered as a compatibility layer in Linux on top of Docker.

<comment><USER30> On one end, I really like the open source movement;

Having said that, I can't do anything but blame it for the slow pace of computer systems research. My reasoning is that the OS does not sell anymore (partly due to FOSS movement) and thus research computing environments hardly come out of the labs for use in production.

We are forever stuck with Unix's interpretation of what an OS could be, and there is very little compulsion/motivation/incentive (can't think of the correct word) to explore. People who do explore (example at MS research or Later Bell labs, remains in the labs)

<comment><USER31> This is not a new phenomenon, though; I was considering an OS research PhD all the way back in 2000, in the research group that brought out Nemesis ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(operating_system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_\(operating_system\)) ) - but even back then I could see that the compatibility issue was a colossal barrier. Back then we thought Windows had won the desktop and the UNIX-like OSs would remain in a niche.

The only thing that disrupted that was mobile. First Symbian, then iOS and Android. Sufficiently different use case that backwards compatibility was rendered irrelevant.

<comment><USER37> I guess thus is the same kind of evilution that s lotnpf technology goes through as it is adopted. Eventually, standards evolve (lane sizes, driving sides, electrical voltages and current limits etc...) and because they are adopted so widely, any change becomes almost impossible. C and UNIX look like they are going to be that standard for the computing world for the next few centuries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Microsoft should do an Apple and build the Windows 13 on GNU/Linux.

<comment><USER39> Windows' driver ecosystem is important to Windows' market success - <USER2> out the kernel (and so, the driver interfaces) would throw that all away.

<comment><USER31> .. unless they build an adapter.

If this sounds horrifying, consider that Windows already has a subsystem for allowing graphics drivers to crash and restart seperately. The reverse also exists: [https://wiki.debian.org/NdisWrapper](https://wiki.debian.org/NdisWrapper)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Please release the Linux-flavoured Windows desktop OS Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER41> It's the default choice when you set up a VM.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm surprised it took this long. With Linux support for .NET and SQL Server, there is zero reason to host anything new on Windows now (of course legacy enterprise software is another story). I wouldn't be surprised if Windows Server is fully EOL'd in a few years.

<comment><USER43> I can understand that for many Mac OS users it's hard to understand Windows. When your OS vendor is requiring you to rewrite parts of your applications each year because of changing APIs it's impossible to imagine a world where applications from 1995 are still running on operating systems from 2019. Same.with security updates for only 3 years where Windows gives you over a decade time to upgrade.

But when you are a manufacturing company and just need to get your product out, you don't care about your software. You want it running for as cheap as possible. That's where Windows shines. Mac OS is explicitly unfit here. Same with the hip technologies like nodejs that require constant attention.

Everybody gives Microsoft shit for moving slow but when was the last time you had to _proof_ that your patch doesn't break compatibility with 20 year old software that you can't even get anywhere anymore?

<comment><USER44> Didn't microsoft ditch QA and make several broken patches recently? I was under impression testing new update rollout on your devices is still local admin responsibility and can break things. How is it different that staggered rollout of any other os update?

<comment><USER45> Yeah, they've completely borked the Desktop side of things, it's true. However the server side is much more conservative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Who wants to deal with licensing headaches on cloud servers? Plus if you want to run headless then you need to go through the AD setup process to manage Windows hosts, where the Linux hosts are fine with just ssh access.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's always fun to watch opinion changes to where the money is. Of course it's not about freedom, community or niceness. Their revenue from cloud services is growing fast. :)

</comment><comment><USER47> I wish MS would just create a Linux or BSD distro like Amazon Linux, ClearLinux, Darwin etc. to replace Windows Server outright...

<comment><USER48> They could probably partner with Red Hat. I would've laughed at the idea 10 years ago, but these days, I wouldn't be that surprised. When they've had OS- ish integrations needed for things like machine-based authentication, RHEL has been treated like a first class citizen. I'm not sure how much Amazon Linux really changes other than branding and some baked-in tuning - unless you're really going to commit to maintaining the OS, just providing a minimal RHEL- based image makes a lot of sense.

<comment><USER8> Why would IBM undermine its own cloud like that though?

<comment><USER49> IBM is not a serious player in the cloud segment.

<comment><USER50> Did you forget that IBM bought Red Hat? It's one of the strongest cloud players now.

<comment><USER49> I did not however, RedHat is not even remotely close to be one of a strongest players. IBM is hoovering around 10%ish, RedHat has no cloud offering that could be taken seriously. Most of the cloud vendors are competing in the public cloud segment (even though with VPC this is arguably more complex question) while RedHat focuses on private cloud, offering mostly OpenStack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is great, IMO. The sooner MS abandons Windows on Azure the better for everybody. You could argue that "monoculture" is not good, but, TBH, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I struggle to name a single use case where I'd _not_ choose Linux over anything else when the use case is not desktop- oriented (cloud, edge, embedded).

<comment><USER52> seems to me that windows is still where you are going to find better (or even a driver) drivers for hardware. is this still true? if new cutting edge hardware released does it now have good linux drivers? (sorry i was scarred by the printing experience on linux)

<comment><USER53> Linux supports much more hardware than Windows. The situation with bad cutting edge hardware support applies only on desktop machines, where manufacturers don't bother with anything but the OS they put in the box.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Datepair.js – intelligently select date and time ranges - <AUTHOR> http://jonthornton.github.io/Datepair.js/

<comment><USER2> Just a heads up, I saw no datepickers in Firefox 26. Here are the JS errors from the console:

        Blocked loading mixed active content "http://jonthornton.github.io/jquery-timepicker/jquery.timepicker.js"[Learn More] Datepair.js
        Blocked loading mixed active content "http://jonthornton.github.io/jquery-timepicker/jquery.timepicker.css"[Learn More] Datepair.js
        Blocked loading mixed active content "http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.7.2/themes/ui-lightness/jquery-ui.css"[Learn More] Datepair.js
        TypeError: $(...).timepicker is not a function Datepair.js:95
        TypeError: $(...).timepicker is not a function Datepair.js:153
        TypeError: $(...).timepicker is not a function Datepair.js:205
        TypeError: $(...).timepicker is not a function Datepair.js:248
        TypeError: $(...).timepicker is not a function Datepair.js:403

It looks like HTTPS Everywhere is switching to [https://](https://), so you just need to change some [http://](http://) URLs to protocol-relative URLs (starting with "//").

Hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER3> make your site a little beautiful will help you get more suggestion on your datepair.js.</comment>


Vesper – HTTP Framework for Unix Shell - chris-rock https://github.com/chris-rock/vesper <comment><AUTHOR> I think this is pretty neat. My dad is somewhat obsessed about doing absolutely as much as possible in bash scripts for some reason, so I'll definitely be passing this to him(!) :)

</comment><comment><USER2> Looks like cgi-bin is making a comeback!</comment>


Your apps are watching you - <AUTHOR> http://on.wsj.com/dM0Tvc

<comment><USER2> Clearly of interest, this is the third submission of this item:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2019508>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018902>

No comments yet, although the original submission got several upvotes.

</comment><comment><USER3> This shouldn't be surprising. These app makers are not producing free apps just for fun. When an app is ad supported, you can be sure it is participating in the selection of targeted ads.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is why I jailbreak and install a firewall on my iphone,

<comment><USER5> That is (one reason) why I rooted and installed a firewall on my Android phone.</comment></comment>


What Your Facebook Profile May Be Telling ID Thieves - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/111722/what-your-facebook-profile-may-be-telling-id-thieves?mod=series-m-article-a

<comment><USER2> I don't really see how this is "Interesting" - <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

It's the same old dull write up about users who don't know better giving out all their private details on social networking sites. This isn't anything new, it's been happening for ages and their are constant warnings and articles like this.

<comment><USER3> Some people like to collect karma and will submit everything they possibly can. Opinions will probably differ on what percentage of blame belongs to the submitter versus the upvoters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first part of the article actually more highlights the fact that security questions are often blindingly insecure. Often a service which uses security questions will provide a list of available questions, some of which would open an account to easy attack if used (e.g. "What is your car registration number?") and many services do not allow a custom question to be supplied.

<comment><USER5> While I agree with the sentiment, I find it surprising how much longer these questions/answers last than the facts I used to answer them.

Even "what is your phone number," I have to think back to the 10 phone numbers it COULD be.

"What is your favorite car?" Well, usually my current one, so WHEN did I create this account?

<comment><USER6> The trick is not to answer the question they're asking you.

Think of something permanent like "who was your favorite teacher in high school" and stick to that for EVERY question.

<comment><USER7> Essentially, a second password that you may have to enter multiple times.

(And that the host may store and/or present -- at least internally -- in cleartext (or a less protected format), depending upon their practices. So, beware if you start / of doing this across different sites.)

What particularly irks me with regard to security questions with many hosts is the absence of an opt out. Here's this security weakening feature, and you must participate!

(I understand is saves them support time/labor on the front end. A bargain with the devil.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes! Let's all live in fear of criminals and professional failure, constantly self-regulating our activities in order to avoid temporary loss.

Do people really have no concept of cost-benefit analysis?

</comment><comment><USER6> Really, Yahoo Finance writer? I can't reveal my pet's name on the internet, or my birthdate, because my bank has bad security?

I would say that the real problem is using stupid questions like that as "security questions". Sarah Palin's account was cracked this way. Anyone who has ever seen my house or tries a brute force attack with common pet names will be able to enter.

And then there's this: <http://xkcd.com/792/>

Do yourself a favor -- when you see a security question like "What is your favorite pet's name", pretend they asked something else, like "What do you like to have for breakfast" and answer that instead, for every security question!</comment>


When Is Dead Dead? (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://thewalrus.ca/death-when-is-dead-actually-dead/ <comment><USER2> I was a volunteer firefighter for a good portion of my youth and saw many traumatic deaths. It's easy, as the article states, to realize they are dead.

At 11 years old I stood by my father in a hospital bed and held his hand and arm as he died. I don't remember the details but other than the emptiness that doesn't have words. But it was slow, similar to the article describes. Not lingering for weeks, thankfully, but not like the movies where someone says his final words and sorta gasps his last breath.

Both are sobering experiences and seeing children die is the absolute worst. I would be having the same debates the author has had.

None of this makes it any easier to face / accept my own mortality either.

</comment><comment><USER3> Imho the problem lies with our constant breaking of natural laws through technology. Before modern medicine, nobody wondered when dead is dead.

While I don't believe in God, I think we shouldn't fuck with the way nature works.

<comment><USER4> /Before modern medicine, nobody wondered when dead is dead./

Not true! Widespread fear of being buried alive (due to stories of seemingly dead people waking up from time to time) led to the invention of safety coffins, for example...

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

<comment><USER5> To those who won't check the Wiki link, that includes the birth of "Saved by the bell" (mechanism and subsequent expression).

<comment><USER6> Is there actually proof of this? The OED thinks that it comes from boxing (where the bell signals the end of a round), and the first recorded uses of the phrase are in a boxing context.

<comment><USER7> That article could use some light editing, at least for that section. Right there in the section referenced it says that it comes from boxing:

 _" The "saved by the bell" expression is actually well established to have come from boxing, where a boxer who is still on their feet but close to being knocked down can be saved from losing by the bell ringing to indicate the end of the round."_</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Getting Above The Noise on Launch Day - <AUTHOR> http://fndrs.net/S0tadE

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really hoping this post get's big because I really want to hear about other startup founder's strategies to getting noticed by tech media.

Like Richard, I try to rally my support team. Specifically I use incentives. It's not working well. Help?</comment>


NYPD systematically games CompStat, their defect tracking system - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/nyregion/nypd-leaves-offenses-unrecorded-to-keep-crime-rates-down.html It looks like a self-defeating practice of bad software development teams has hit the big time. The managers of the police department of New York City are, according to this newspaper article, systematically under-reporting crimes to make themselves look good.  This CompStat system, before they figured out how to manipulate it, was successful at helping the NYPD allocate their officers to where they were really needed.  But no more. <comment><USER2> Is this the fate of all management reporting systems? I work for a large government department that has a project "dashboard" (actually a big ugly mess o' spreadsheet) that is supposed to show senior executives which projects are falling behind. Of course, the dashboard is totally gamed to always show everything as 'green' no matter how far behind and overspent the project is. The easiest way of doing that is by quietly descoping what used to be critical requirements (i.e. the stuff that would make it actually usable by the people on the front line). The senior executives get their performance bonuses, the middle managers get promoted, the IT staff get to keep their jobs. Everyone's happy (except the people who have to use and support these three legged dogs)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is sickening at all levels.

From the police officer who shirks their duty to serve and protect out of bureaucratic cowardice and laziness. The administrators who don't seem too curious to find out if the 21st century has yet invented a better, more convenient way for officers to log crimes. And of course, the politicians and higher-ups who think that crime numbers can and must perpetually slink toward zero.

Most alarming is the lack of our authorities to grasp cause and effect and basic statistics. The article notes that crime has fallen so low that even one felony causes a stir. I'm just a citizen but even I know that shit happens. Moreover, when crime reaches a low enough point, policing effectiveness may not be the main factor in crime occurrence...things like infrastructure (e.g. night lights) and social spending may be more of a determinant

</comment><comment><USER4> "This American Life" had a segment some months (a few years?) back that covered this from the perspective of a cop who documented it and was ultimately, incorrectly committed to a mental hospital by his superiors in a horrible attempt at intimidation and control.

Absolutely disgusting. But also part of a number of things / instances of reporting that have made clear to me that such things are not unusual.</comment>


Trigger.io one year on - <AUTHOR> http://trigger.io/cross-platform-application-development-blog/2013/04/17/one-year-on-the-numbers-the-product-the-future/

<comment><USER2> Titanium says to do the same. Generate native code from HTML5 (<http://www.appcelerator.com/platform/titanium-sdk/>)

<comment><USER3> A Titanium app will be compiled into native code whereas a Trigger.io app is actual HTML/JS/CSS living in a native webview* wrapper.

* should feel / behave like your default mobile browser

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I keep getting confused between this company & get-bridge (deadpool? the site doesnt load)

My initial impression of both these companies was 'vapourware', but if developers are ready to pay Trigger - good for them.

For someone also working in a crowded market, i can empathise with trigger's challenges to cross the chasm. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER5> I wish Trigger.io would just build on top of Cordova (PhoneGap) so I could re- use all the plugins available in the PhoneGap community.

Instead on the trigger.io home page they link to a year old (now) inaccurate claim about being 5x faster on Android.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice growth graph Amir :D

Why did you post this to HN in the middle of the night?

<comment><USER7> Timezones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great progress, Amir. Now, if only more startups adopt your away-trip practice :)

</comment><comment><USER9> The last example on: <https://trigger.io/examples/> has a quote from a previous example. Both are from the CTO of Famium.

Just a heads up.</comment>


The Cajun Navy and the Vigilante Future of Disaster Relief - <AUTHOR> https://www.gq.com/story/cajun-navy-and-the-future-of-vigilante-disaster-relief <comment><USER3> Disaster relief has been self-organized among local volunteers in many parts of the US for a long time, it is almost a cultural tradition. I would make the point that it is encouraged in part because it is anti-fragile; the people that live in an area often have better information and communication/resource networks, and can react faster, than the more centralized disaster management the government provides. Especially in the early stages, it provides a more thorough and robust response because it is so well distributed.

I've lived through a few major natural disasters around the country. These ad hoc disaster organizations materialized out of the community and were effective every single time. The government will often step aside, and just act in a supporting role if the volunteers have a good ground organization. In one case where I was volunteering, we came up with a shopping list of things we could use immediately to mitigate the major problems, and the state government rooted through warehouses, found what we needed in other parts of the state, helicoptered it in, and just gave it to us to use as we saw fit. We had a plan and an ability to execute it much more quickly than the official agencies.

(As an aside, during my first major natural disaster, I discovered that union regulations limit the hours the government workers onsite can put in, the conditions they can operate in, and the kinds of things they can do without regard for if those things need to be done given the nature of the disaster. These volunteer organizations are unhindered by such rules and will work their ass off, whatever is necessary. Letting these volunteers run a lot of the relief efforts and supporting them instead taking point is a way for the government to work around its own structural lack of urgency.)

<comment><USER4> Where did you see that?

I've been involved in a few disasters, including in places with strong unions. Never saw that happen.

<comment><USER3> California, in the 1990s. I thought it was surreal at the time, but I had more pressing concerns since I personally had life and property on the line; I was a victim trapped in the disaster area, doing what I could. There was a lot of stopping and starting work, and they had supervisors flying in to make sure everyone was following whatever their workplace SOP was. There was a memorable 1 hour work stoppage because someone complained that (in all seriousness) the tasks were not equitably distributed across genders -- the lead supervisor on site deftly squashed that but it kind of blew my mind that it took precedent over the task at hand. I have a lot of great "wtf?" stories from that experience.

Don't take it as anti-union, they just had a lot of rules and processes that made them relatively unproductive under the circumstances. There were 30-40 of us working together, an ad hoc organization of volunteers, working 16-hour shifts with almost no breaks that essentially did the bulk of the disaster mitigation work. It made for poor optics with the locals; they saw a bunch of ragtag out-of-towners trapped in the disaster with them working their asses off while the government employees stood around drinking coffee half the time. I understand how that happens but it wasn't a good look. And this is why communities love their volunteer disaster response. (And full credit to the local community, they took fantastic care of us the best they could.)

<comment><USER4> That's unbelievable. I've spent most of my work in New York.

I've seen my share of work to rule bullshit, but never anything like that. I cannot fathom what a toxic shitshow that agency must be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> America has a tradition of volunteers helping out in a disaster. I really disliked them being referred to as vigilantes in the headline. To me that implies that they're taking the law into their hands to get revenge. They see overwhelming need and are volunteering to assist local authorities, not to supersede or oppose them.

<comment><USER6> "I had to beat the hell out of the nursing-home director" and "Do what you have to do... We'll deal with the consequences later" sound like vigilantism to me

<comment><USER7> No, what he did had legal authority. Use of force against threats to life (and that is what it was deemed by officials both during and after the fact) is one of the _natural rights_ the U.S. is officially constituted to protect.

Cowardice is not a civic duty, nor a virtue. Use of force by civilians in perceived service of the law is often justified. Going out looking for a fight is one thing, serving the public is another.

Ideally, the law can be upheld without force; when force is required to uphold the law, we could ideally rely on peace officers to be ready, willing, and able to take on that burden; but in the end, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to uphold the law and prevent suffering.

When force is necessary, and when peace officers aren't around, a person who uses the necessary degree of force to rescue old people from a drone who would rather watch them wade naked in their own faeces until they go hypothermic or fall ill, than violate a workplace policy is not a _vigilante_ , but an _upstanding citizen_.

It's natural to scrutinize and question the motivations of somebody who has used force, but it is a disservice to us all to hold common people to a _higher_ standard of conduct than the police.

<comment><USER6> You didn't cite any statue; your use of "constituted" was as a regular verb ie not referring to the capital-c Consitution. Therefore, your comment appears to be an opinion

<comment><USER8> statute

<comment><USER9> It's always hilarious when the grammar nazi has a spelling mistake in his grammar nazi post.

<comment><USER10> To be honest, it's a spelling mistake, not a grammar mistake.

The misspelling of a word does not destroy the sentence structure.

<comment><USER8> No it doesn't destroy the sentence structure but it does destroy his argument, especially given that the "mistake" he was pointing out was very far fetched and not really a mistake at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> During the 2016 floods in the Baton Rouge area, I was part of this effort. Flooding disasters are fog of war. Victims are psychologically paralyzed with disbelief and loss, and there are others who prey on them. It's part of our Southern culture to help one another and get things done. If the CN helps protect the vulnerable while evacuating and saving lives, so be it. You can't sit around and wait for help that never arrives.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is not totally new as many places have volunteer fire departments - <USER2> extends the concept.

<comment><USER13> How is it organised in the US? In Australia/Vic while the are volunteer firefighters, they're working with the state organisation and are being put on the same level/block as the career ones in the structure: [http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/our- structure/](http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/about/our-structure/)

<comment><USER14> Where I grew up, there are no professional firefighters; it's all volunteer, just something people did as a hobby, basically. I think they might elect their own chief and officers, or it might be on the public ballot, with the dog catcher and other town positions. Usually, there's nobody on duty at the station, so when a call comes in from the 911 dispatch at county or wherever, their pagers or cellphones go off and they leave work to rush to the station, gear up, and go out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm glad to hear they are organizing _after_ the disasters, for the next one. It's easy to jump in, in the thick of it. But the training, preparation & organization can't be faked on the fly, and it's critical to getting the best outcomes.

If you've got the appetite, learn about ICS/NIMS. They are built on a history of mistakes & missteps due to weak organization. NIMS in particular was commissioned after preventable errors in interagency operations trapped & killed firefighters in the towers in 2001.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd love to see the government (or just some kind of NGO) hand out radios and some kind of specific-to-this-community application to people who own boats or other specialty equipment. If there were an easier way to organize, they could be even more effective. Use GIS to let them do site surveys and maybe respond to low-risk rescues, letting professionals/government do the highest risk. Right now there are coordination issues.

(The other thing I'd like to see, which is done in some areas, is turning gas stations into disaster fortified base stations -- they have fuel tankage already, add generators to pump when the grid is down, and maybe store a connex or two full of bottled water and other disaster supplies on property, or in an underground tank type thing (which they already need to have installed for fuel, so whenever they upgrade from single to double wall or whatever, dig one extra vault). Putting a cell tower onsite, and maybe some kind of satcom backhaul, and some kind of data network which could work even in isolated mode, would help in situations like Puerto Rico. The incremental cost of funding this with tax money would be far lower than building up other community response sites.

<comment><USER11> The interesting thing is we self-organized. If you had a flat bottom boat and a truck, you helped your family first. Then there were twice as many people asking for help. It was easy to help because so many people needed help. I think technology would have been in the way, to be honest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The truth is when it comes to life or death situations you cannot always wait for an official response to the incident. Especially in large scale disasters where the local government is not capable or disabled from responding with the speed or scale that is demanded to save lives.

</comment><comment><USER18> You know, if the us federal government can't get its stuff together, why not? It's not a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER19> A member of the Cajun navy would be quite justified in taking the cost of boat, gas, safety equipment, etc out of any taxes owed to the government. Seeing as how he is doing their job and all.

<comment><USER20> That may be a bit of a stretch, but a per diem covering at least your running expenses would be reasonable.

While it appears there's room for improvement in US disaster response services, we should keep in mind that any major emergency is basically Nature pulling a DoS attack on us; it would be unreasonable to expect the government to be everywhere immediately. (Which, basically,is why they should reimburse private citizens coming in to help.)

<comment><USER21> We're not talking about the end-times here. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires are routine events with hundreds to thousands of prior examples. It's not at all unreasonable to expect organizations that are chartered to deal with them to be pretty good at it by now.

"Will there be an organized response to a disaster?" is right up there with "Do murders get routinely and professionally investigated?" in terms of whether or not we are living in a civilization.

Aiming no higher than reimbursing the ad-hoc vigilante efforts is such a dark worldview.

<comment><USER22> The recent flooding associated with the cajun navy is not a routine event. It was regarded as a "500 year flood." Local rivers (Amite River) that rarely have a problem with capacity overflowed into nearby cities (Baton Rouge, Denham Springs, etc.) Houses on land that did not require flood insurance were filled with water to the roof-level.

Not Normal: [https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/08/16/louisiana-f...](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/08/16/louisiana- flooding-stack/assets/images/590191904-1254.jpg)

Video of devastation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZSXGin- zNA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZSXGin-zNA)

Law enforcement would have been prepared to handle normal-scale hurricanes, flooding, etc. (They do) but were not prepared to handle this kind of uncommon disaster. And even though the disaster was unforeseen, the government still helped some - my parents were removed from their house via Coast Guard. (But many more in the same area were removed by locals with boats)

I do agree that it makes sense to reimburse cajun navy participants in some way but I'm not sure how</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Saddest Thing I Know about the Integers - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/2014/11/30/the-saddest-thing-i-know-about-the-integers/ <comment><USER2> Welcome to the world of Barbershop music (one of my primary hobbies) ;) Unlike a piano, which must be tuned and which has a temperament that is fixed from chord to chord in a piece, the human voice can make minute adjustments to come as close as possible to those nice integer ratios (both in the fundamental and in the upper partials produced by their voices). When we do, we are rewarded with (sometimes screaming loud) overtones caused by the constructive interference between the sounds being produced by each of the four parts.

As this article points out, it's mathematically impossible to perfectly tune some of these intervals, but depending on the relationships between the notes being sung, you can tune to one singer or the other. It takes a lot of practice and a good ear, but the resulting effect is pretty darned cool.

<comment><USER3> I went looking for examples of what you were talking about and discovered that, amazingly enough, a _single_ human voice can even reliably produce overtones! I'm guessing these are very different, though, than what you're talking about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i61_JNc_Nc&t=1m25s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i61_JNc_Nc&t=1m25s)

I'd love to hear some examples of a barbershop n-tet doing it too, I'm sure it's even better. But when I search for 'barbershop overtones' it's all music by groups _called_ The Overtones :)

<comment><USER2> If you're curious about overtone singing, listen to this -- it's insane: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC9Qh709gas](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC9Qh709gas)

The principle is actually the same -- she is modifying her singing apparatus to emphasize different upper partials that are already in her voice. Barbershoppers do this as well, though less explicitly (we do vowel matching, which helps emphasize upper partials to produce greater ring).

Here's a video from a perennial favorite quartet (the Gas House Gang): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvYT_yWiLqU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvYT_yWiLqU) The top/tenor note is often the same note as the primary overtone produced by the other 3 parts (adding further emphasis to the overtone), but this effect is what gives barbershop the quality of sounding like more than 4 voices, and produces the "ring" in the sound.

<comment><USER4> It's a traditional way of singing in Mongolia I think.

<comment><USER5> My favorite example of this is Huun-Huur-Tu, I hadnt even seen a non-tuvan do it before this thread. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0djHJBAP3U&t=100](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0djHJBAP3U&t=100)

<comment><USER6> I can do it pretty well -- the higher one, not the deep version (I can approximate the growly version, but it'll have me coughing after about 10 seconds, so I'm clearly doing something wrong!) -- after seeing Huun Huur Tu in concert back when I was in school I just tinkered until I could get the overtones reliably.

I also did a bit of barbershop (we called ourselves The Overhead Projectors...) and playing with throat-singing was actually quite useful in that context. I'm not sure how much it affect my actual voice control (probably some), but mostly I just became keenly aware of how much tone could vary just based on little changes in positioning of mouth, throat, tongue, palate, etc..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have never yet found anyone who agrees with me, but I believe the terminology around music theory is horrible. I mean that it is unnecessarily confusing. Most people that use it have no problem, but I believe they developed their overall understanding almost independent of the terminology, so now just use it as descriptive in its context, and do not at all notice how bad it is if you are trying to use the language as your first point in _comprehending_ the underlying notions.

<comment><USER6> I'm surprised you've not found more agreement. I studied music in university, and have run a music-theory centered website since 1998 or so, and I definitely find the terminology to be rather bad.

It sounds mathematical in some ways (there are certainly numbers _in there_ ); but when you look closer it's inconsistent and/or just plain weird.

When you start writing code working with scales, intervals, triads, seventh chords, etc., the oddities really become obvious. The base unit of movement is the half-step; but the full-step is almost a useless concept -- a major scale is a seemingly random pattern of half and whole steps, major and minor intervals included in it. Whole notes refer to note duration. A whole tone scale is about the intervals between pitches. Looping the pitches from G back to A, but most starting counting at the C (for the simplest major scale).

There are historical reasons for the oddities; but it wouldn't be too hard to come up with better... it's much like language that way, though. Think of all of the inconsistencies in English -- yes, we'd be better off in many ways if we could just fix all of the broken bits (e.g.: the past tense of "lead" is "led", but the past tense of "read" is written "read"... but pronounced "red"). But we can't -- because everyone's using the broken version, there is a huge corpus of knowledge written in the broken version, etc. etc..

<comment><USER8> I'm not so sure "it wouldn't be too hard to come up with better..."

I read about a thing called hummingbird notation - uses the same clefs, but changes noteheads, staffs and sharps/flats. Your opinion may differ, but here is a group of folks who spent a lot of time coming up with a "system" and it does not strike me as an improvement.

Have there been other attempts?

<comment><USER9> The trouble with notation systems is that the primary thing they need isn't to be easy to learn, but rather to have a ton of people who have learned it. I've seen lots of alternative notation systems, particularly in pedagogy, and from my experience people tend to hack up their own systems for jotting down ideas or composing, but mainstream staff notation is very adequate and has an insane amount of momentum.

<comment><USER10> Translation system, maybe?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, its the same with QWERTY, the only way you could replace the existing system is if the new system was so much better in some way that it replaces it by default. Mobile phone keyboards are the only thing to come close to replacing qwerty, and most of them just re-implement it anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am hoping someone can answer the following genuine question(s) from a mystified layman: Is our perception of sound really so sensitive to precise ratios ? Is a frequency ratio of 1.5000 somehow inherently more pleasing than 1.5001, or is it more the case that appropriately trained or gifted individuals can _detect_ the difference ?

<comment><USER12> I met a composer of minor note (pun intended) who avoided writing major 10ths in the melody, because the ratios in standard tuning were wrong enough to cause major discomfort for him. This interval is about 14 cents sharp, where a cent is defined as 1/1200 of an octave on a logarithmic scale, so 14 cents is about an 0.8% difference in pitch.

Curiously, major 3rds did not bother him, even though they have the same ratio problems.

<comment><USER13> To put that in perspective, pretty much anybody can distinguish a pitch difference of 25 cents. People with perfect pitch can distinguish differences of less than 10 cents.

Anecdotally, when I was taking lessons with my old cello teacher (who has perfect pitch), if he and I played a note on an open string simultaneously, I could always tell if we were in relative tune by the way the notes interfered. I don't think I'm particularly special in that regard.

Edit: Also, once I have one string tuned, I can tell if a neighboring string is correctly tuned because neighboring strings differ by fifths. Again, I don't think I'm particularly special; it's just a matter of learning what to listen for.

<comment><USER14> People with _relative_ pitch can also discern < 10 cent differences. 10 cents is pretty obvious in the right context _. People with perfect pitch don 't need a reference; people with relative pitch do.

_I play pedal steel, and string 6/G# drops a whacking 10 ten cents when press my A pedal and boy howdy can I hear it - and I don't have perfect pitch, just reasonably good relative pitch.

<comment><USER15> Pedal steel! Do you live in the Bay Area and like playing country music? If so, wanna jam sometime? I've got a rehearsal space in SF.

<comment><USER14> I live in Texas. It's a bit of a haul :)

<comment><USER15> As you could guess it's pretty tough to find pedal steel players around here!

<comment><USER14> I would actually think that to be untrue - NorCal has lots of pickers of many instruments. The process of finding musicians is just one of those hard problems.

It might be worth joining the (web-based) Steel Guitar Forum. Membership is $5.00 per year. There may also be a local steel guitar association. If you play another instrument, you may be able to volunteer to sit in backing other players at meetings. Also, find The Guy in the area who does steel guitar repair.

Good luck in your search!

<comment><USER15> Oh no doubt the Bay Area has a ton of pickers, but pedal steel players are in short supply.

The main scenes tend to be related to the Grateful Dead and other jam bands. There's been a big rise in bluegrass and country inspired jam bands as of late although they're mostly living in the foothills or Tahoe.

Sweetwater in Mill Valley, Terrapin Crossroads in San Rafael, and Ashkenaz in Berkeley have a healthy amount of traditional American string players but I'm telling you, almost no one plays pedal steel. There's a few guys like Dan Lebowitz who are just phenomenal but they've all got their plates full.

San Francisco's got Amnesia and Veracocha and a few other smaller venues but I'd gotta say that Phil Lesh's Terrapin Crossroads is what the scene revolves around in the Bay Area.

I have no problem finding fiddle, banjo, or mandolin players! Just pedal steel!

<comment><USER14> You know what this means - become one! Learn you the steel guitar! It's intimidating, but it's worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Would it be possible for an electronic piano to dynamically adjust the temperament based on the keys currently being played? In such a piano, the C and G keys could be precisely 3/2 when they're played together, and the E♭* and G could be precisely 5/4 when they're played together at some other time.

Assuming an algorithm could be worked out, would it end up sounding worse due to notes shifting around ever so slightly to make all the ratios work?

* Edited.

<comment><USER17> It's already been done and tried by many folks in many different contexts. Search for adaptive Just Intonation.

Anyway, there's fundamental issues this approach can never solve. An E and G should NEVER EVER be 5/4\. That would be E and G-SHARP (or E-flat and G). But this is a good example of the issue. E and G could be 6/5 or 7/6 or 19/16 or… (the first two make the most sense). So, how is the keyboard to know when I play E and G that I wanted it to be part of a C-major 4:5:6 chord versus part of an A7 4:5:6:7 chord? There's no way other than some input that can tell me or the thing adapting after-the-fact when I later add the rest of the chord.

I think the best overall tuning software for keyboards is [http://www.tallkite.com/alt-tuner.html](http://www.tallkite.com/alt- tuner.html) by the way, although adaptive stuff isn't the focus.

There's many others though. Cheers

<comment><USER9> You can still certainly do adaptive JI with manual composition, particularly with electronic music production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This isn't sad, because we don't simply compare pitch ratios when we listen to music. Real human consonance perception is much more interesting than that, and William Sethares has formalized a very good model: [http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/consemi.html](http://sethares.engr.wisc.edu/consemi.html)

There's great opportunity for microtonal tunings without the dissonance often associated with microtonal music. And as others have already pointed out, traditional techniques already do this (eg. stretch tuning). The theory explains why it works, and how to expand it to arbitrary timbres, including those possible only with synthesizers. I'd love to see more musicians experimenting with it. There's a whole lot of unexplored musical novelty out there.

<comment><USER19> I love Sethares work, but to use it in its full generality, we'd want arbitrary timbres. In practice, most of our timbres are highly harmonic.

Speaking of which, another theorist, Dmitry Tymoczko, has some fascinating theories on harmony that you might like in his book A Geometry of Music. A few years ago, when I was reading his and Sethares's work, I really felt like their ideas put together would make a fascinating grand theory of tonal music.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _Imperfect octaves are pretty unacceptable to any listener_

This is false, and in fact pianos are tuned in imperfect octaves. The reason is that due to nonlinearity, the harmonics of a vibrating string are not perfect multiples. They are sharp! And that actually contributes to the character (timbre) of the note.

When a piano is tuned, typically the middle range is set according to an electronic source (nowadays). The higher keys are tuned against the harmonics of their previously tuned lower octave counterparts. This means that those notes are slightly sharp. Likewise, notes in the lower register are a bit flat.

<comment><USER19> Yep, although you could probably say that given a timbre, octaves without optimal partial coincidence are pretty unacceptable.

<comment><USER20> This is hard to say; is it simply expectation bias? Because some instruments have elements with wacky harmonics, like bells, metallophones, xylophones, Jamaican steel drums and such. Notes do not have a fundamental which coincides with a harmonic of a note one octave below. That's just how the instrument sounds. If a piano reminds us of a metallophone :) then we conclude that it's awful and out of tune. Still, even that is appropriate to some genre, or for comic effect. A western saloon bar calls for a detuned piano. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> With computers you can fix the problem. It's interesting to experiment with playing arbitrary frequencies instead of the standard ones. A computer could generate music with perfect pythagorean ratios relative to the dominant key at any given time. It could even follow those ratios as the dominant key changes, gradually drifting away from equal temperament.

</comment><comment><USER22> >The difference between a Pythagorean fifth and an equal temperament fifth is not enough to bother any but the fussiest listeners, but it is detectable to some.

Thought experiment: Suppose someone with perfect pitch were to sing out all the notes on a scale which they feel sounds perfect, while someone else would measure the frequencies of each note they sing. Obviously, the result would not show a counter example to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, but I'd be curious to know what it would show...

<comment><USER23> Mostly likely the person with perfect pitch would be singing the "correct" scale they were taught to sing, which almost certainly would be equitempered. But in principle it's not impossible to imagine someone (someone impossibly talented anyway) singing their way around the cicle of fifths and landing in a key that doesn't quit match the one they started in.

And the point in the article that temperment cannot be heard is sort of wrong anyway. You can write some quick code to generate both chords, and the difference is notable. Perfect tuning is something we actually hear regularly in things like tight vocal harmony. It's not alien.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the 1960s, La Monte Young wrote a piece entitled _The Well-Tuned Piano_ , a riff on J. S. Bach's _The Well-Tempered Klavier_. It features an equally-tuned piano, so each interval is mathematically correct, rather than being the standard "good-sounding" intervals. It really throws you off at first, but it's well worth a good listen. (It's six hours long though, so don't listen through it in one sitting.)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzwgJq9vsDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzwgJq9vsDM)

</comment><comment><USER25> Wow.. the article and the comments here are fascinating. I don't have much to add, but I think what you guys are calling overtones are something some of my friends and I used to do as kids. One person would sing or yell a single loud note and another would sing or yell a sliding scale of notes listening for the overtone where a "spooky third voice" would chime in. We made up stories about it being a ghost summoning ritual and such. :)

</comment><comment><USER26> If you haven't seen Qiaochu's answer about this subject over at math stack exchange, it's easily one of the best answers on any stack exchange site: [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/11669/mathematical-d...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/11669/mathematical- difference-between-white-and-black-notes-in-a-piano)

</comment><comment><USER27> More a fact about human psychology than about integers, I'd say.

</comment><comment><USER28> So how well can you approximate a fifth with a different number of notes in your equal-tempered scale?

        import itertools, math

        def rationalizations(x):
            ix = int(x)
            yield ix, 1
            if x != ix:
                for numer, denom in rationalizations(1.0/(x-ix)):
                    yield denom + ix * numer, numer

        for frac in itertools.islice(rationalizations(math.log(3, 2)), 10):
            print '%d/%d' % frac,

produces

        1/1 2/1 3/2 8/5 19/12 65/41 84/53 485/306 1054/665 24727/15601

I guess 8/5 is for the pentatonic scale? Then after 12 tones the next good approximation has 41 and we've run out of the alphabet.

<comment><USER29> This series is, in fact, really cool. It does in fact point out that the pentatonic scale and the 12-tone scale are things that you can almost make just by gluing together fifths, and then it points you to the 53-note scale, which despite being hard to work with is freaking awesome: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53_equal_temperament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53_equal_temperament)

(The 41-note scale doesn't accomplish much, it turns out.)

The 53-note scale was supposedly discovered by Ching Fang (the same guy who discovered that the moon reflected sunlight) in the first century BC.

The equivalent of fifths in the 53-note equal-tempered scale are an unreasonably good approximation to just intonation, kind of like 355/113 is an unreasonably good approximation to pi. It also happens to contain good approximations to all kinds of other just intervals. And because 53 is prime, you don't just have a circle of fifths, you have a circle of _any interval you want_.

So you can use this scale as a reference point to compare different tunings, scales of world music, and scales invented by avant-garde composers. Or you can use it as a cool thing to play with.

<comment><USER28> Cool! Yeah, I considered pointing out that 84/53 is an especially good approximation for its complexity (since the next in the sequence uses much bigger integers) -- but how are you going to deal with 53 notes, or even 41? It's neat to hear that others were not stopped by that.

(It did occur to me you could almost label them with letters of the alphabet, with one left over: 53=26x2+1. But that'd be silly and invite confusion with the 12-tone note names.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Trombones are in tune.

<comment><USER31> In theory, at least. I've never noticed it in practice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Heh. My dad's a jazz pianist and the quip is ingrained: "You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish." Dramatic pause. "Sure you can. You use its _scales_."

Heh. But seriously, folks...

</comment><comment><USER33> Posted today by Paul Barton, a video that lets hear piano sounds never heard before.

Like the moon that eclipses the sun, revealing solar flares, this mechanism helps hearing what's hiding behind the main notes hit.

Skip to 3'58'' to hear only harmonics sounding after dampening manually a C3.

Skip to 7'17'' for a demonstration of the sympathetic sounds.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHWex94-mHg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHWex94-mHg)

</comment><comment><USER34> [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of- unity/2014/11/3...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of- unity/2014/11/30/the-saddest-thing-i-know-about-the-integers/?print=true)

here's a link to the print version, the floating 20% off horror for black friday and cyber monday are gone, thank god.

</comment><comment><USER35> Do we perceive octaves as precisely 2:1 or is that an approximation? i.e. is it really 2.041256:1 or similar.

Is this problem then because we start with integer ratios? Is this problem solvable if we started a "true(?)" irrational ratio?

<comment><USER36> It's exactly 2. It's not so much about how we perceive them (well in the end it is I guess), but there is a real, physical relationship between the two notes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> What if you stop using Hz and use something else?

<comment><USER38> This is about unit-less ratios, so the basic unit of measure doesn't matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> >The fact that 3/2, 2, and 5/4 are incommensurable makes me genuinely sad

But they're not...

I am also puzzled about the alleged connection to UFDs.

<comment><USER40> "incommensurable" is apparently being used in the sense that their logarithms are not in rational ratios (so no common step size generates them all in the relevant way). The connection to UFDs is that one way of seeing the incommensurability in this sense is through unique prime factorization (as exponent vectors over the primes 2, 3, and 5, the noted values are 3/2 = <-1, 1, 0>, 2 = <0, 1, 0>, and 5/4 = <0, -2, 1>, none of which are collinear).

<comment><USER41> I agree that the connection with UFDs is tenuous. Being not a UFD is nether a necessary or a sufficient condition to have powers of a single thing (or a finite number of things) generate all nonzero elements. The ring of integers modulo 7 for example is a UFD, but all nonzero elements are powers of 3. Also, the ring of integers of a number field is only sometimes a UFD, but it is never generated by powers of some finite number of elements.

<comment><USER40> Being a UFD in general is not enough, but being a UFD in which 2, 3, and 5 are (co)prime is certainly sufficient for incommensurability of 3/2, 2, and 5/4 in the relevant sense.

I agree that it's rather odd to start discussing UFDs in general, Gaussian integers, etc., just for this incommensurability result, but since unique prime factorization is the key to the whole thing, it's not entirely out of left field.

(I'm also not accustomed to considering the ring of integers modulo 7 a UFD, insofar as exponents in prime factorizations are never unique as integers in this context (only as integers modulo 6), but that's just a minor difference in the way we apparently use terminology)

<comment><USER41> "Being a UFD in general is not enough, but being a UFD in which 2, 3, and 5 are (co)prime is certainly sufficient for incommensurability of 3/2, 2, and 5/4 in the relevant sense."

Ok, this seems like kind of a contrived condition though, compared to, say, the condition that 2, 3, and 5 are prime (which also suffices).

Something that occurred to me after I made my last post (and possibly what you meant in the second paragraph?): perhaps the author didn't mean to imply that the UFD property is useful for characterizing when you have incommensurability in different rings, but rather that it's relevant because it's used as a step in the proof that these ratios are incommensurable in the case of Z. This makes sense to me but in my opinion it wouldn't hurt if the article were more explicit on this point.

I'm not familiar with a commonly-used definition of UFD for which the ring of integers mod 7 is not a UFD. Could you please point me to a reference that contains this alternate definition of UFD you are referring to? The definition I am using is the one in Abstract Algebra by Dummit & Foote, which happens to agree with the definition on wikipedia at the time of this posting.

<comment><USER40> Yes, I think what you're saying in your third paragraph is what I was trying to say in my second paragraph. And I agree that the article could stand to be much clearer on its motivations.

Re: the integers mod 7, I had a brainfart; of course the integers mod 7 are a UFD, but trivially so, as they are a field. My apologies!

<comment><USER41> Well I'm glad we are in agreement then. No worries about the UFD thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm not a music-making-guy, so I ask out of curiosity — do current electronic keyboards have selectable temperaments?

<comment><USER43> Yes, my Kurzweil K2000 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurzweil_K2000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurzweil_K2000)) supports fully customisable temperaments – you can even tune it to the Bohlen- Pierce ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlen%E2%80%93Pierce_scale](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohlen%E2%80%93Pierce_scale)) scale if you want!

<comment><USER44> That's a sweet, sweet synth.

Now I'm kicking myself for selling my gear. I had an Alesis Ion. So much fun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> mind = blown.</comment>


Same origin violation and local file stealing via PDF reader - <AUTHOR> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-78/

<comment><USER2> Why does pdf.js even _have_ any special permissions? It doesn't need any to render a PDF.

<comment><USER3> If I'm reading the disclosure right, the injection is into a non-privileged part of the PDF reader. But the PDF reader is loaded from the local filesystem, so presumably that means it has access to files on the local filesystem and can disclose them to a third party. This would be a violation of the same-origin policy, since the PDF is coming from a network origin and shouldn't be able to touch local files.

I'm not totally clear on this though, since usually file:// is treated specially to avoid security exploits. Maybe PDF.js is loaded from a local filesystem origin that doesn't have those restrictions (chrome:// or something equivalent)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe the upstream pdf.js fixed this already, [https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/](https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/).

</comment><comment><USER5> Why are they linking to private bugs?

<comment><USER6> Mozilla often opens up security bugs after a while (when they feel like everybody's been patched), so that can be useful when looking at the advisory page in the future.

Sometimes things end up forgotten, though, since that seems to be a very manual process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> pdf.js was a pretty cool hack, but I wonder if it's time to integrate pdfium.

edit: I meant "hack" in the "cool application of technology" sense.

<comment><USER2> Moving from code _inside_ the browser sandbox to code _outside_ the browser sandbox seems like a bad idea. (Chrome's integrated PDF support runs in a sandbox despite being native code, but Firefox doesn't have equivalent native- code sandboxes.)

<comment><USER8> Moreover, I'd take sandboxed JavaScript over sandboxed native code any day, given the complexity of modern browser IPC and how much kernel surface area tends to be exposed even to sandboxed processes on Windows and Mac.

<comment><USER2> Modern browser IPC is what backs JavaScript as well as sandboxed native code, so that's not going to save you. Windows/OSX issues aside, on Linux I'm more comfortable with seccomp-bpf than with a sandbox that's based solely on assuming an absence of security holes in a JavaScript virtual machine.

<comment><USER8> Oh, I don't want to argue that unsandboxed JavaScript—and by this I mean unsandboxed at the OS level—is more secure than sandboxed C++. (Now I think there's a reasonable case that it is when compared to the sandboxes on Windows/Mac, but that's debatable and I'm certain that people with more expertise in security than I have disagree with me.)

My point is that I prefer having the JS VM _and_ the OS-level sandbox, as opposed to just the OS-level sandbox.

Regarding IPC, I think there's a difference in terms of surface area between being able to call the Web APIs and being able to send arbitrary bytes (and shmem, etc.) across the named pipes/file descriptors.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Referral to work at Google? - <AUTHOR>

Hi folks, I'm asking this here because I know that this is probably one of the best places to ask this other than knowing someone directly working at Google...so here it goes (since I don't have the latter).
I'm sure this has been asked many times before, but I would like to apply to Google, and I hear the the best way to do this is through a referral from within Google.  I also hear that there are incentives at Google for referring people who get hired.
I want to apply through this method, would anybody here be able to help me?
I have a Bachelors in CS. <comment><USER2> The best way to do this is through someone that knows your work intimately and works at Google. On the referral form is a question for "How well do you know this person?", and if I submit a resume, I'm going to answer truthfully and say "Not at all". This will give you a slight bonus over submitting a resume "over the transom", but nowhere near as much as if you can get someone who says "I worked with this person for X years, he's awesome, definitely hire him".

If you don't know anyone that can give you that sort of recommendation, shoot me an email (my address is in my profile) with your resume attached, and I'll submit it for you. I'll also need to know which position you're applying for (from the external job application site - though the referral form actually has slightly different titles), and which location you want to work at.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do not work at Google. But, you may want to add a few more details like what your special interests in CS are, where you studied, what sort of work excites you, link(s) to projects you worked on, etc...</comment>


A deeply worrying example of how fascism can grow in Europe - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Jonathon_Shafi/status/969632268372316160 <comment><USER2> My native Italy is voting today. The rise of anti-immigration sentiment and fascist nostalgics is horrifying, they've put out a very slick and savvy campaign.</comment>


A Culture-Hack for Startups/scaleups [Launch News] - Ozzie-D http://cultureboom.co <comment> Ozzie-D Startup Culture Building Solution: As an author/entrepreneur with domain expertise in people, culture and learning, and as someone who shares the maker ethos, I have been deeply interested about startup culture. cultureboom.co is my effort to actually create a system, which is scalable, and whereby founders can get a service that is 1/10th of the alternative and has 10x the effect.

Would appreciate any constructive opinion.</comment>


How to Really Complete a project? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I work over projects which are helpful for disabled people.
Completed a project named "Bol" which is an Android application for Autistic kids [1] . Link to download app from play store is at [2].
Which I have donated to The Autistic Society of India, With the collaboration of SAP labs they launched it over Play Store.
I was working over one more project named "Drishti: Feel The View" [3]. Which was loved by Blind people when I show my prototype to them.Which I have to stop because of funds constraint.
And presently I was working over 1 more project for the blind, which I felt like they really needed it and faced the same problem FUNDS.
I am well paid employee in a good company So I don't need money for doing all this awesome work, But these projects do need so I spent all my savings on these projects with which I never thought about making money out of them.
But now I feel like I should save some money for myself, but I am not sure if I am not going to pay for these projects then how can I bring these things to the end.
All these projects are just to make me feel good and worthwhile, which have nothing to do with my current profession or company.
What my approach should be according to you guys, so that I can complete these projects and provide prototypes for free ?
[1]: http://techautismandme.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/bol-v1-1/ [2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bol.app [3]: http://techautismandme.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/drishti-feel-the-view/ <comment><USER2> Would finding non-profits or some form of crowd-funding be an option?

</comment><comment><USER3> What do you spend money on?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am glad you asked,

I am not an electronics guy, so for every new I have to buy it myself, sometimes it is ok for small projects, but in the long run it is not that easy.

For example, I bought Kinect then I have to buy Arduino boards, then Rasberrypi the whole electronics kit and all these things are very small but after that I felt like I needed to test Google glass, but that was too costly that I can afford the same thing with 3D printer too so I tried to build one for myself. This might Sound like few not so costly things, but when they all add up I am all over with my funds, Last thing is travelling after development of some prototyping to get the subject's view for that. All these things do delays the project and in most of the cases the project became dead.

<comment><USER3> First, you're obviously a very good person. It sounds like you're trying to solve some very difficult, expensive problems. Kudos for having the courage to tackle these problems and the dedication to wipe out your own savings in the process.

However, people who are as dedicated as you still need to protect themselves. In this case, it sounds like you're experiencing some financial stress as a result of your endeavours. Not only does stress like this interfere with your personal life, but it will also make your activism less effective. We need people like you to be able to run marathons and not just 100m sprints!

My advice is to network as much as you can and find a group of likeminded people with complimentary skills. Because you're the kind of person who believes giving back is important, you're also the kind of person who can motivate others to do the same. If you can find a likeminded group of people, not only will you get access to more skills, but you'll get access to more equipment. I also suggest that you blog about your projects, tell stories about people you have helped, and ultimately treat your social endeavours like a business. Buzz will attract volunteers at first and eventually donors.

In the meantime, ruining your finances will harm the very people you want to help because if you experience financial ruin, you'll have less time and inclination to help. Therefore, focus on the types of projects you can implement in your own community, using equipment and skills you already have. It's good to dream big, but with social entrepreneurship it is more important to dream sustainably.

Edit - I won an award for some social entrepreneurship that I was involved in. If you'd like to talk with a likeminded person, my email is on my profile!</comment></comment></comment>


Why Astronomers Worry About the Brightness of SpaceX's Starlink Satellites - <AUTHOR> https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-astronomy-observations.html <comment><AUTHOR> Is there any reason they could not be painted with the new very black paints? Or does some of their surface need to be reflective for some reason?

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like this can be done:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/20/this...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/20/this- is-how-elon-musk-can-fix-the-damage-his-starlink-satellites-are-causing-to- astronomy/#d8025634ccce)

> Even more cost-effectively, simply coating the satellites with a very dark, > low-albedo outer layer would go a long way to reducing the astronomically > polluting effects of this constellation.

> Albedo reduction, it is very clear from the current Starlink satellites, was > not even considered as part of the design. By incorporating some common > sense steps to reduce it — and I know plenty of astronomers willing to help > with recommendations — the apparent brightness of these satellites can be > reduced by a factor of approximately ~100.</comment></comment>


Wanted website developer - <AUTHOR>

looking for a website developer in st. louis to join a startup team asap <comment><USER2> love to hear more info. Hit me up if we don't know each other already, <http://dylanhassinger.net> @dylanized</comment>


Ask HN: What can you do with a "feature" for other's products? - <AUTHOR>

There are several features for products that I've "developed" (thought of, prototyped, elicited initial response from customers). The problem is, they don't stand alone, and can only be viable if attached to an existing product:
Some are "virtual" - one such feature, can only be effectively implemented if you have an index of the web (e.g. if you are google, bing, or ddg)
Yet another one, is an improvement for physical doors (like the one in the entrance to your home).
The common theme to these ideas is that while that feature might be worth while for customers and producers alike, it is not sufficient to start a new business with.
What can one do with such ideas, except patent and try to market them to the most probably beneficiary? <comment><USER2> > _What can one do with such ideas, except patent and try to market them to > the most probably beneficiary?_

That's your answer though. Or if you're feeling benevolent you could just publish them.</comment>


America at the Atomic Crossroads - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/america-at-the-atomic-crossroads <comment><USER2> 'Between 1946 and 1958, the equivalent of more than two hundred million tons of TNT was detonated (on the inhabited Marshall Islands by the US Military) — like a Hiroshima every day for almost forty years.'

...

The local language grew full of horrible expressions for birth defects: "jellyfish" (babies born without bones), "grapes" (spontaneously aborted clumps of tissue), "turtles," "octopuses," "apples," "devils." The Crossroads tests were the beginning of one of the more disturbing American nuclear legacies—a trade of flesh for knowledge.

<comment><USER3> Horrible indeed. Makes one wonder what the Soviets got up to when the US is supposedly the "good guys".

<comment><USER4> They may have been just following our example.

'Meshcheryakov, the Soviet physicist, like all of the international observers, was not allowed to see any more than the reporters. But he still saw much. The mushroom clouds from Able and Baker interested him some, but he was more taken with what he saw in the people around him. The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate nuclear weapons into their military doctrine.'

<comment><USER5> > The Americans, he told Moscow, were not in any way interested in > disarmament. Rather, they were training their armed forces to integrate > nuclear weapons into their military doctrine.

Of course, disarmament doesn't really make sense: once science has discovered something, it can't be undiscovered. Integrating every new discovery into one's doctrine (even if that integration is, 'we'd rather not') is far more mature than pretending something doesn't exist.

<comment><USER6> I'm in the middle of reading _Command and Control_ by Eric Schlosser: if it is to be believed, then in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was a widely held opinion (possibly approaching a consensus) _even among the upper ranks of the US armed forces_ that atomic weapons should either be banned outright or placed under the sole control of a world authority, maybe even a world government.

Curtis LeMay (IIRC) stated that those two were by far the preferable options: but failing those, it was imperative that the US had "the best, the biggest, and the most".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>