NASA Funded Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Propellantless Propulsion - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/mach-effect-thrusters-interstellar-travel/ <comment><USER2> Not this shit again...

Look closely at the picture of the test chamber in the article. Do you see Helmholtz coils surrounding the entire apparatus? Nope.

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

It's the same story as the EMdrive: they run something at high current, without cancelling earth's magnetic field.

high current + earth magnetic field = force. This method is used to move satellites:

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

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't you want to run tests in multiple orientations to cancel Earth fields anyway? Similar to how you would run a Michaelson-Morley interferometer experiment.

<comment><USER2> The torsion balance introduces fixed biases, and can be operated only in XY plane. So in theory you're right, in practice it's not possible.

Not canceling earth's magnetic field (an easy thing to do) when measuring microNewtons at high currents is just very poor experimental practice. Unprofessional. Amateur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > On a clear night in March 1967, Woodward was stargazing on the rooftop of > Pensión Santa Cruz, a hotel in the heart of Seville, in Spain.... As > Woodward gazed up from atop his Spanish hotel, he saw a speck of light > arcing across the sky and mentally calculated its path. But as he watched > the satellite, it began deviating from its expected trajectory—first by a > little and then by a lot.

> Everything Woodward knew about satellites told him that what he was seeing > should be impossible. It would take too much energy for a satellite to > change its orbit like that, and most satellites weren't able to shift more > than a couple of degrees. And yet, he had just seen a satellite double back > with his own eyes. He didn't conclude that engineers at NASA or in the > Soviet Union must have secretly achieved a breakthrough in satellite > propulsion. Instead, he believes he saw a spacecraft of extraterrestrial > origin.

Seems more likely he spotted a reconnaissance aircraft at very high altitude. I think the U2, A-12, and SR-71 were all operational in 1967.

<comment><USER5> Or a bird. Less high up, nice white tummy, reflects the light.

<comment><USER6> Do you honestly think that somebody trained in astronomy could mistake a bird for satellite? Have you _seen_ how satellites move? They traverse the sky in a perfectly straight and constant-motion fashion that is utterly unlike any bird.

Even a high-altitude plane such as the U-2 would be fairly difficult to misidentify as a satellite. For obvious reasons, U-2s and SR-71s and such didn't employ lights while operating at altitude; therefore the only way to see them would be via reflected light. It would need to be reasonably long after sunset, or else the sky isn't dark enough to credibly see a satellite -- but not so long after sunset that the plane would be in the earth's shadow. Satellites have a similar window of observability -- but it's much longer, because they're much higher. A high-altitude plane would have a very small window. Moreover, it would need to execute that turn without crossing the terminator: as soon as any reflecting object crosses the terminator, that reveals its altitude.

<comment><USER7> That he made a mistake is much more plausible than that it was aliens.

That he was hallucinating is much more plausible than that it was aliens.

That he was lying or had a false memory is much more plausible than that it was aliens.

Pretty much any mundane explanation is much more plausible than that it was aliens.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's worth noting that if a propellentless drive works, it will probably _generate free energy_. This may adjust your expectations on how likely this idea is. How likely is a free energy device (ie, one that reliably gives you more energy out than you put in)? Well, this thruster can't be any more likely, because it would produce free energy.

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00494](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00494)

> the kinetic energy of a mass with a constant force applied will increase > with the square of time, while the electrical energy input only increases > linearly with time. A mass with such a drive attached would eventually have > a kinetic energy greater than the energy input.

...

> For example, an evacuated track 10km long and supplied with 1 GW of power > that is fed via induction along the track to a 100 kg mass equipped with an > EM drive would result in the mass experiencing an acceleration of 4000 > m/s2(i.e., 407 g's) and having a velocity of 8.94 km/s at the end of the > track, at which point the mass would have a kinetic energy of 4 GJ. The time > to accelerate the mass is only 2.23 seconds,however, so the energy input > required is only 2.23 GJ. At the end of the track, the mass could be > decelerated via regenerative braking, generating more energy out (4 GJ) than > was input (2.23 GJ), for a net gain of 1.76 GJ free energy.

<comment><USER9> > [..] while the electrical energy input only increases linearly with time.

This is the fallacy. In an electric motor the power required to exert a force is proportional to the speed, so if you want to keep the acceleration constant you need to increase the electrical power (i.e. rate of energy use) linearly over time. Hence the total energy input increases with the square of the time, just like the kinetic energy imparted. If the system is 100% efficient then the total electrical energy used will be equal to the kinetic energy of the mass.

<comment><USER8> > proportional to the speed

In what reference frame? It's not obvious to me how this works in a space drive. How does it "know" how much speed it gets per unit energy?

I guess if it's a sort of Dean drive that swims through the gravitational field of the visible universe, then that's the reference frame. It's still weird!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wiki: (...) Woodward states there is no violation of momentum conservation in Mach effects:

If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We simply push on the object when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive. The reaction forces during the two parts of the cycle will not be the same due to the mass fluctuation, so a time-averaged net force will be produced. This may seem to be a violation of momentum conservation. But the Lorentz invariance of the theory guarantees that no conservation law is broken. Local momentum conservation is preserved by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is chiefly exchanged with the distant matter in the universe.

<comment><USER11> How does Lorentz invariance guarantees that no conservation law is broken?

<comment><USER12> I can't remember what the conserved current of LI is but symmetry implies a conservation law.

(Noether's theorem)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reminds me of the recent EmDrive hype, that didn't go anywhere.

<comment><USER14> I see what you did there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's the paper: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theor...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134421_New_Theoretical_Results_for_the_Mach_Effect_Thruster)

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting caveat about traveling close to the speed of light...if you run into hydrogen atoms, which is near 100% likely, your ship violently explodes because at very high speeds, there is a huge reaction on tiny matter collisions. I just learned this and it was like learning that sound doesn't travel in space when I was young and ruined many a starwars movie effects. I keep learning how ignorant and dumb I am the more I follow SpaceX and become curious about space.

<comment><USER17> Interstellar ships will be shaped like pencils to deflect rather than impact gasses. They will also have to have consumable nose cone sections with old ones in the front being removed and new ones installed at that back. Like a mechanical pencil.

<comment><USER18> What happens when the ship has to turn around to decelerate, with its engines facing the front?

<comment><USER19> The turn-around takes place at the half-way point of the journey. This means that for the entire second half of the journey, the engine is pointed at the oncoming dust.

Engines used in such long journeys will likely emit a thin stream of particles at extreme velocities. This stream is not wide enough or thick enough to stop space dust from hitting the engine. An unshielded forward-facing engine will get destroyed. So we must shield the engine.

Instead of having two shields and turning the ship around, just turn the engine around. Make the engine emit streams forward from the sides of the ship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Could we all just wait until there's a (reviewed) paper in Nature or something?

</comment><comment><USER21> This sounds, like the EM drive, too much like trying to move your car by sitting inside and pushing on the dashboard....

Still, a "vacuum propeller" would be a massive revolution (no pun intended) if it is at all possible.

<comment><USER22> It is because the payoffs would be so enormous that business like this and "overunity motors" continue to gain attention. All of those other elixirs were shams, but _this_ one will work! Finally, immortality! The enormity of the reward causes the payout matrix to lead people astray.

Don't get me wrong, I see a vacuum chamber, which is light years ahead of most of these enterprises, but I would not spend a dime on it until it has been proven to work in a region of space relatively far from the Earth's magnetic field.

<comment><USER8> It's a kind of Pascal's mugging, I think.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging)

That said, Woodward does not seem to be an actual charlatan, so I don't have a problem with funding him. At least he might turn up something fun and/or interesting, even if I don't think it's going to usher in a new space age.

<comment><USER23> I personally believe he rides that line of charlatanism where he's not pursuing this theory in bad faith at all, but he of course recognizes that tromping around on the edge of a theoretical branch that most physicists don't think is worth exploring garners attention he wouldn't otherwise receive.

I strongly suspect that whether history remembers him as a charlatan will depend heavily on whether one of the supports of his branch proves false and it snaps off, or whether he's been right this whole time and we suddenly oops ourselves a propellantless drive that operates by coupling to the gravitational field and pushing distant objects around. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One should note that propellantless propulsion systems exist. They are called lasers. It is just that the thrust to weight ratio of such an engine is very low.

A quick google search does not bring back any designs or research papers of such a system, as the results are swamped by the idea of using ground based lasers to push spacecraft instead of the craft itself containing the laser.

</comment><comment><USER25> So, I have to ask: If Elon Musk is working on propulsion tech to go to Mars, and Bob Lazar claims to have worked on reverse engineering propellentless tech and is one of the single digit number of living people to have encountered it directly, _and_ NASA is slow rolling their own understanding of it, given the limited available expertise in this area how can Musk afford to not hire Lazar? From a due diligence perspective, Musk would need to know with a high degree of certainty that Lazar is full of crap.

While this might sound insane, from a portfolio perspective, if a VC firm is invested in SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, or anyone else in the space, it seems negligent to not have some exposure to a company with someone like Lazar involved in it, unless you really knew for sure, as he and people like him present an existential risk to rocket-based tech companies. That guy is the ultimate hedge.

<comment><USER26> Your logic assumes only one such person. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of similar people with, let's be super kind, unlikely ideas. If you hire them all that's not a hedge that's a huge cost with an almost 0% probability of payoff.

I'd bet the number of such people with unreasonable ideas will go drastically up if you start hiring them too.

<comment><USER25> The analog I'm thinking of is that space propulsion could turn out to be as much of a sandbox as cybersecurity and crytpo have been, where there was always a ceiling above which everyone just agreed to not look. I'm being super charitable about Lazar, but having been in the security field both pre- and post- Snowden, Lazar is more like a Binnie or Drake figure, with the full extent of the issue still further off in the future. What good technologists suspected about crypto and saw little edges of, vs. what ultimately came out implies companies like those mentioned above would need to have done some deeper arguments and analysis beyond blowing him off as just a kook. Musk's opinion on Lazar would be interesting for its own sake.

However, this is also like saying you have to rule out every "free energy" conspiracy before starting a battery company as well, so it's not really that much of a forcing function at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From the article:

> Mike McDonald, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory in > Maryland, will be among the first [attempt to replicate their results]. He > leads an internal program for independently testing advanced propulsion > systems, which has previously shot down promising results from the EmDrive.

<comment><USER28> There might be such a place, although it's more likely they're trying to refer to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC.

<comment><USER29> The U.S Naval Research Laboratory also has several facilities in MD. Including at Patuxent River, Chesapeake Beach and Blossom Point. Given the nature of the work I would guess it is referring to the facility at Blossom Point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sounds really bollocks to me. Seems like shades of the Emdrive: [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a15323/temdrive- con...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a15323/temdrive-controversy/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Nit: "as Newton put it, inertia is why an object at rest tends to stay at rest." No, what Newton said is that an object in motion tends to continue in motion at the same velocity (and an object at rest tends to remain at rest, i.e. with velocity=0).

While this doesn't have a lot to do with the original article (hence my "nit"), it was revolutionary at Newton's time. People had observed objects at rest staying there; that's why you can sit on a chair. But they had also observed that any object in motion (except for those in the sky) slowed down and eventually stopped, unless you kept pushing them. Newton attributed this to friction.

This theory--which contradicted what people could plainly observe with their eyes--is what makes possible satellites (and keeps the moon in orbit), since being outside the atmosphere, they experience very little friction. Of course the other thing necessary for man-made satellites is a way to get them moving fast enough, for which Newton's third law comes in handy (it's why rockets accelerate, even outside the atmosphere).

</comment><comment><USER32> See

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

particularly this article

[http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/stine.htm](http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/stine.htm)

</comment><comment><USER33> So, [https://xkcd.com/955/](https://xkcd.com/955/) appears to be relevant. If someone were to take it, I'd make a bet that this is not real. If it is not real, then I win the bet, but if it is real, then I'd be too fascinated by the result to care.

</comment><comment><USER34> I would like to see more pictures of his desk. I adore such setups.

<comment><USER35> I'm more curious to learn why the image on the monitor shows a screenshot instead of an actual desktop or open program(s).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's really disappointing that a human can work on something for 30 years and only get a tiny amount of thrust. Our science needs to go in different directions it seems we are stuck living in the past.

</comment><comment><USER10> So much hate in the comments. Have some hope, people.

<comment><USER37> People don't like to see quack science take funding from legitimate science. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is quack science, but it certainly reeks of the same claims as previously documented quack science.

<comment><USER38> I believe a total of $620,000 over a span of several decades. I am personally quite happy to fund one-off random projects like this. The amount of money is a trivial rounding error. Funding 100,000 failures at this level would be worth it if one, just one, worked.

I do understand that others might think differently. I like moonshots.

<comment><USER30> Referenced elsewhere in these comments [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging)

<comment><USER38> We spend about $150 billion per year on science funding in the US. I don't think we're being irrational by giving moonshots roughly 0.00003% of the funding. That's a generous percentage, too, considering the funding for Jim Woodward spans many decades.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What Are You Working On? - <AUTHOR>
 What are you working on? I'm working on Safe. We build simple privacy tools. Our vision is that encryption will be as easy as starting a Zoom meeting. <comment> ar-nelson I'm building a language server for R7RS Scheme. I have a basic error-tolerant parser working, and it can infer the location of missing parentheses from indentation. I'm already using it in Vim, and I've been pleasantly surprised at how useful it is, even at this early stage.

I've gotten sidetracked building up the SRFI support in my portable Scheme standard library, Schemepunk: [https://github.com/ar- nelson/schemepunk](https://github.com/ar-nelson/schemepunk)

Right now it runs on 7 Schemes and has implementations or polyfills for 15 SRFI libraries. I'm also working on a B-tree implementation of SRFI 149 (persistent mappings).

</comment><comment><USER2> I am working on a web browser(Including rendering engine, not webkit). The codebase is in D.</comment>


The Side-Project Project - <AUTHOR> http://sachagreif.com/the-side-project-project/ <comment><USER2> 10 hours seems far too short for most side projects. Maybe I'm too inexperienced as a developer, but I consider a lot of my projects to be "side" projects, and they take at least 30 hours.

I just don't see how you can create a full, well designed, functional website based off an original idea in under 10 hours.

For those that have side projects that you made in under 10 hours, could you share them?

<comment><AUTHOR> I created The Toolbox in about 10 hours (<http://thetoolbox.cc>). If you feel like a project will take more than 10 hours, I would suggest scaling your idea back.

Of course, if you have more than 10 hours available then go for it, but a lot of people never start precisely because it seems like too big a task. So I thought the 10-hour rule could be a good way to get past that.

<comment><USER3> That's a nice side project. I can see this being useful. Can I ask if the site looked this good on the very first release or have you gradually improved it since its first post 10hr release?

<comment><AUTHOR> It pretty much looked like this, the only thing I added later was the filters and rankings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If you've built side projects before, post them here! I'll start:

\- <http://patternify.com> – A pixel pattern generator that produces CSS Base64 code (made with jQuery)

\- <http://thetoolbox.cc> – A directory of useful web apps and tools (made with WordPress)

<comment><USER4> I built among others <http://recovermywebsite.com>, which can retrieve your page from the Yahoo or Bing cache. It took more like 100-300 hours instead of 10 :)

<comment><USER5> That's cool, my mate cancelled his hosting recently and forgot to download his files. The website needs replacing anyway but if this works at least he'll be able to get the old one online again.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One question: how many of you have side projects, whose main purpose has nothing to do with the web? I mean do you build/play wth furniture, micro controllers, cooking etc kind of stuff.

I know that monetizing them is far more difficult compared to web ones due to default advantage of distribution on the web.

But what are your successful projects which are non-web?

<comment><USER7> I built a room temperature monitoring system with an mbed microcontroller and 29 maxim digital temperature sensors to show how heat is distributed in a room - made a nice 3D visualisation of the data with a Processing Sketch. Completely non-web but a total success in what I set out to do

<comment><USER8> Interesting, was this developed for something like a generic room in a home or something with many sources of heat like a data center?

<comment><USER7> It was developed for a generic home room, I wanted to see what the room looked like thermally and determine where the heat was collecting and how that could be improved

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What hosts does everybody use for these side projects? I'm interested in working on some of my own, but I'm just wondering if everybody is paying for hosting and as you expand into multiple projects how you keep it from getting too expensive. I'd really appreciate any information.

<comment><USER10> I use rimuhosting - pretty reasonable service for a decent price.

I had performance issues with my last host that resolved completely when jumping to rimuhosting.

I've got two main apps hosted there (one large, one small), with a number of other random sites that don't do much.

It's costing me about $US40 a month for hosting, which is a reasonable chunk of cash to put down for a hobby/side project every month, but once this amount is offset against ad income it's not really a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a side project which is writing a production management plant for my brother in law's company.. That's not exactly "a quick website", took me around 600 hours (six hundreds) so far. I've worked 2 hours a day, 4 days a week on average for more than 1.5 year now... Still doin' great. No web site so far. Not even github (what for? I'm the only one working on it :-))

<comment><USER12> Any reason for not releasing an MVP with frequent follow-on releases instead of a big-bang release? I ask because I suffer from the problem of not releasing often enough. Saw matching symptoms in your post that made me wonder what your reasons were.

<comment><USER11> OK, you have good insight. So here's the deal...

I'm rewriting an old, limited BASIC (!) application. So my "customer" knows quite well what he needs (he needs the same, but better). So requirements are rather easy to grasp. I also demonstrate progress every now and then so that he can get a good feeling of what I do. Now, the code has become good enough that I can give it to him to test it (and he'll behave as the usual customer : he will not test enough :-) ). Moreover, I have access to its current database => i've got a lot of data to validate the business rules side of the program.

Concerning the big bang now... The program is quite a "whole" so it's pretty hard to release a part of it. I basiacally made two parts : the classical ERP stuff and the time reporting (machines/humans). Also, working for a small, privately owned company, to replace an existing software is different than a brand new "super idea" web site. That is, the room for error is super small. And since it's a side project, I cannot provide on site support within 8 hours. Therefore, I think the big bang is the only option (well, for both parts of the program). As said, I'm working on a stable requirements basis => I'm confident I can manage the application development and code quality with standard testing...

In retrospect, I think the project is nice but a bit too big. 2 years, day in day out, is quite an endeavour. And although I like it, I feel it has to finish now...

In case you wonder : I didn't use an existing ERP solution because after some tests by my brother-in-law-customer, it appeared that they are either too expensive, too complicated/slow or they impose too much of an administrative burden (eg. ned to declare every single stocks before being able to actually write some production orders...) Hopefully, what we're doing will prove more efficient for our case (and, let's dream, there might be other people interested, I mean, rich people :-)))

stF

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> <http://www.movii.es> \- quickly see what movies are now showing, and judge them based on Rotten Tomatoes and Social Media reviews.</comment>


Ask HN: bikechatter.com - review & suggestions - <AUTHOR>

Looking for suggestions for this site I whipped up to play around with twitter some, and to unclog my main twitter page of all the cyclists I was following. <comment><USER2> Not sure this is the best way to unclog the twitter feed. Something like a group in Tweetdeck would work really well to solve that problem.

Though, maybe you can do some neat things with this idea.

First thing that is apparent to me is that there is too much noise. This needs to be reduced in order for me to read this feed. Maybe an up vote system (HN, reddit, etc) to stress important tweets. You could also stress the important tweets with some other metric (number of replies, number of followers, etc).

Second thing that is apparent is that I don't know who half of these cyclists are. I need to know why I am reading x person's tweets. You could expand the bio pages to include more information on the each cyclist (full name, team, rankings, wikipedia link, etc). Also, I want a list of the cyclists that are being tracked.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, those are good suggestions.

I don't really care about 'unclogging twitter' - that's for someone else to deal with, I just wanted to provide a nice group of cycling feeds, grouped together.

Voting for interesting messages is a good idea, as is adding some information in order to give some information about riders who are not Lance Armstrong and thus relatively obscure.

<comment><USER3> The rider list is the only missing feature that I had expected to find.

Seems that there are two areas to cover: who's on Twitter and what are they saying. As for who, definitely add more information but consider grouping the riders for context (by nationality, team, specialty, recent/upcoming races, etc.). Consider adding a text box to suggest another rider.

And as for what they're saying, a sort of "mute" button would be nice; Burke Swindlehurst is funny but a little too prolific. Perhaps allow the posts to be grouped by rider. That way Dave Z fans won't miss his infrequent posts, such as "Raced through a town called Bonar today..."

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, I added the complete list. I think working on some categorization/user ratings sounds good too. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the clickable link:

<http://www.bikechatter.com>

I'm looking for ideas of fun/cool things to do with it to make it more interesting.

</comment><comment><USER4> Erm I'm sorry but... What is it?

Is it just a live search of twitter for some term?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a collection of professional bike racers on twitter. I guess most technical people could follow them all, but not everyone wants to do that, and not everyone wants to track down new ones, and not everyone is "technical people" either.

It's definitely _not_ aimed at a general audience - if you don't know who Ivan Basso and Cadel Evans are (on the front page right now), it's not for you. But maybe you have some fun ideas just the same:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> OK... As a huge cycling fan I love the idea of this site. I could follow these guys on Twitter but I like the idea of taking a 2 minute break and just skimming this site instead.

Some suggestions:

1 - Spend time on making a more cycling oriented design 2 - Add thumbnails of the cyclists pictures next to their comments and maybe link to a bio page

</comment><comment><USER6> I wouldn't put all those messages up there with my own copyright notice. Besides that, I only see profile pics next to a few cyclists, so that could use a fix. Seems like this could be useful to someone in that community--maybe try pulling out trends, the way Twitter does across the whole service.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point - fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> i'm not sure what more you can do, but a good start would be to clean it up. the layout is broken for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hearing that really made me lose it. I am so f'ing sick of HTML and CSS not working properly from one browser to the next... and the damn thing is pretty simple, and uses a CSS "framework" (blueprint) to boot. It works fine in FF and Konqueror.

Thanks for letting me know, though:-(

<comment><USER7> you don't fully use blueprint though, which is whats causing the problem :p

#statusnav's parent is a blueprint block, but its breaking for me in the transition from #statusnav's parent div to the #stati table, which isn't blueprinted.

<comment><AUTHOR> The table should just be contained, though, right? I guess not. That seems to fix it. Don't understand why it's completely broken in one place and works fine in another, and of course it's frustrating to not even be able to test these things easily across different systems. Thanks again for the tip.

<comment><USER7> if you're going to use blueprint or any css framework, you need to use it 100%. or as much of 100% as you can. otherwise, it won't be able to do its own job.

and, yeah, such is the life of the web developer/designer. i have 12 browsers installed on my windows box.

<comment><AUTHOR> > such is the life of the web developer/designer

The thing that drives me nuts is that it has been the life of the web developer since I started doing this in 1997. I'm sick of things working in one place and not in another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As has already been stated, your layout needs work. Looks like you've got a table (gasp!) that is not clearing the floated status bar content or something.

The layout is extremely simple, I think you are overcomplicating it by using a "blueprint". It's just a bunch of content the flows linearly down the page, no need for floats or anything fancy.

</comment><comment><USER9> good start, not displaying correctly in Safari on XP. I do follow cycling though so I do see some value in the site itself once things get worked out.</comment>


Rust-analyzer – an IDE backend for Rust - <AUTHOR> https://rust-analyzer.github.io/blog/2020/04/20/first-release.html <comment><USER2> I used RLS 1.0 (through the VSCode RLS plugin) for a year or so before discovering rust-analyzer, and I just want to say, even in pre-alpha it is an _astonishingly huge_ improvement. If you do Rust development, do not wait to upgrade. Type checks are instant. _Inferred_ types get previewed inline, also instant. Autocomplete works as expected. Type errors are localized, which might have been my biggest frustration with the old RLS. In terms of developer experience it's like using a whole other language.

<comment><USER3> I wholeheartedly agree.

I tried Rust a few months ago and I was a little dumbfounded on how little 'modernity' I felt (regarding the IDE experience) compared to what several articles told me I should expect when using Rust with, for example, Visual Studio Code.

Last month a project with requires the development of a high performance event collector came in, and I decided it was time for us to go to the Rust side. Again, I redid my dev setup with VSCode but this time I used rust-analyzer, and oh boy.

"What, I now have practically __instant __inlay typings as I type a line of code?? "

e.g: "let x<: type> = ..." type inlay changing dynamically as I instantiated the object on the right hand side.

So if you just like me got little winded at the sheer complexity of the whole Rust thingy and decided to wait a little more to dive in, let me tell you: rust-analyzer makes the whole thing way more palatable.

Fast forward a __WEEK __later and I have a multithreaded message passing, postgresql consuming backend prototype to show the guys. It is very performant and consumes about 2 megabytes of ram while running and providing a continuous streaming websocket info feed to the to-be-developed dashboard that we are doing.

Rust is awesome. and better tooling is going to make it soar even higher.

<comment><USER2> Yes. And the thing is, because Rust _is_ such a complex-to-compile language, and because there's all this discussion around its slow compilation times that they're working to improve, I just assumed the whole time that "well I guess this is the cost of having such a powerful type system". I didn't question how terrible the editor experience was. But now I see how much better it could've been!

I know the Rust team is hard at work, and I know they have a lot on their plate, and I'm very grateful for the work that they do. But I think it was a mistake to de-prioritize the editor experience for so long. It may have permanently turned off lots of people to Rust because they tried it and assumed the language was just too hard, when in reality they were flying blind. The compiler messages may be known for being great, but many people, especially newer devs figuring out a language, don't sit there with a compiler open while they explore what is and isn't allowed. There's much more to the dev experience than the compilation experience.

<comment><USER4> I'm not a compiler writer myself, but my impression is that designing a compiler "the traditional way" and designing one "the IDE way" look really different. Most people who learned to write compilers 10 or more years ago learned the traditional way. As a new language, Rust benefited from a lot of obvious-in-hindsight things, but "design your compiler for an IDE first" just hadn't reached quite the same level of obviousness by 2010.

<comment><USER2> As someone who knows very little about compiler implementation but has some interest in it, I'm curious what makes the difference between the two in terms of architecture

<comment><USER5> Basically the IDE one needs to take into account that your program is broken all the time, yet you want code completion for everything else that is actually correct.

Also it needs to respond immediately after asking for completion, as anything beyond 2s is frustrating development experience.

You also want to get real time errors and warnings, just for the parts that are actually broken, not a wall of text like many batch compilers that fail to understand the remaining of the file.

Also you want to be able to do code refactorings, regardless of the compilation state.

So basically you want a Smalltalk/Lisp Machines like experience.

Anders has a nice interview about this,

[https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Seth-Juarez/Anders- Hejlsberg...](https://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Seth-Juarez/Anders-Hejlsberg-on- Modern-Compiler-Construction)

<comment><USER2> So would you typically maintain a separate compiler for each use-case, or try and make one that serves both?

<comment><AUTHOR> IMHO, one that serves both. The IDE case is a superset of the batch case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd just chime in to say that Rust-Analyzer is an awesome tool that really helped me as a Rust beginner. Having your text editor show the types of everything, highlighting the mistakes you made or suggesting functions right after you keypressed a dot is awesome to discover all the features Rust offers you as a developer.

Can't wait for rust-analyzer to graduate as an even more fully featured LSP – it has the potential to really changes the daily life of thousands!

<comment><USER7> I couldn't agree with you more. It's seriously increased my enjoyment of programming. Kudos to the creators!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> One thing I find astounding about this project is the breakneck pace of development. I keep up with the weekly changelogs and subscribe to the nightly builds. Its genuinely impressive how much this project has achieved and the rate of new features being produced.

Thinking back to some of the RLS blogposts about the need for something like rust-analyser from about a year ago I'm pretty sure nrc (Nick Cameron) said it would take about 2-3 years to reach this point. However, I'd say rust-analyser has been usable and better than RLS for many months now.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that year comparison doesn't work super well; some of the work done in the compiler over the past 2-3 years contributed here. rust-analyzer (in my mind) would not have been possible in the same way at the time the rls was built. It would have needed to do a lot of the work that's been ongoing in the background since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the homage to IntelliJ Rust in this article!

As a newbie computer science major who "grew up" in the era of Eclipse/IntelliJ conversion, IntelliJ will never cease to amaze me in how much more productive I became with IDE tools and the general "power behind the compiler".

Mad props to the plugin interface JetBrains has provided and the novel solutions that have come out of this style of thinking that far outpaces the experience in something like Xcode.

<comment><USER5> If InteliJ is amazing then using Smalltalk or Interlisp-D/Lisp Machines is like out of this world.

<comment><USER10> I'd love to read an article that compares capabilities of the two! Martin Fowler seems to think otherwise:

> I was known for my annoying habit of stating how Smalltalk's IDE was better > than anything I'd seen. No longer. For me IntelliJ was first leap forwards > in IDEs since Smalltalk.

[https://martinfowler.com/bliki/PostIntelliJ.html](https://martinfowler.com/bliki/PostIntelliJ.html)

<comment><USER5> It seems full of empty praise words without giving any example how it is better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The performance and stability improvements in rust-analyzer over the last six months have been remarkable. Kudos to matklad and the whole team behind this. I'm using it full time now.

<comment><USER12> I can definitely say that having carved out a space where rust-analyzer is a job for matklad and some of the contributors boosts such things.

(I'm managing the open collective and I'm so happy for all the support, in money or just in kind words)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone know how the Rust-Analyzer compares to the Rust Intellij plug-in? From the article it seems that Intellij uses their own custom solution.

I've been playing with Rust for the past couple of weeks, and I've really enjoyed the working with the language. The documentation and community are top-notch. The biggest downside from moving from a language like Java or Typescript (which I use in my day job) is the IDE experience. Things like code completion for other crates (which you'd take for granted in some of the other languages) don't seem to work.

<comment><USER14> Personal Anecdote: Every time I've tried using rust-analyzer in another editor I've ended up going back to CLion (an IntelliJ-based IDE from JetBrains). The CLion experience is far superior in my personal experience. The speed difference is barely noticeable on my system while the completions, etc. are far more accurate with CLion. For example, with rust-analyzer on one of my projects, it sometimes suggests hundreds of possible completions for in a certain context whereas CLion (accurately) only suggests a handful. The integrated debugger support has been quite nice too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I tried it recently and I know it's just alpha right now but something feels a little fundamentally annoying about the way it changes things in the editor while you're typing. One example is that it seems too eager to claim something is a syntax error before you've really finished really typing it.

<comment><USER16> Wouldn't that be the text editor's fault?

<comment><USER15> Not sure about that - doesn't seem to be a problem with any other extensions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is rust-analyzer's relative modernity a symptom of intrinsic limitations behind Language Server, or tactical limitations of RLS?

I was very hopeful about the bright future of language server, and its ability to solve that N^2'd problem between editors, addons, and languages. But, if it can't provide truly great experiences outside of Typescript (which has been my unfortunate experience), it does not bode well for the project.

<comment><USER12> The latter. rust-analyzer implements the language server protocol like RLS.

RLS was implemented using the compiler as a library, which meant it inherited the compilation model of the compiler, which isn't really well-suited for IDEs. That was done in full knowledge of that drawback.

The advantage for RLS is that it has perfect parity with the language.

This may be fixed by using rust-analyzers libraries within the compiler. RFC here: [https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2912](https://github.com/rust- lang/rfcs/pull/2912)

<comment><USER17> Excellent to hear. This was not obvious from the blog post, and I should have done more digging before jumping to conclusions.

<comment><USER18> From the article:

> We build the rust-analyzer binary, an implementation of the language server > protocol, which can provide a basic IDE experience for Rust today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is there a tutorial for how to get this working in vscode? I installed the extension, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. I tend to have a workspace with a bunch of folders in it, and it seems like rust analyzer only works with a single rust folder in your workspace and nothing else? At least it's throwing a lot of errors indicating that.

<comment><USER20> I also had trouble getting VSCode workspaces to work (i.e. multiple project roots.)

Also at times, when adding a new crate dependency to Cargo.toml or installing a rust-analyzer update, it seems necessary to reopen the VSCode project (not restart VSCode itself) to get it to work again.

This said RA has been indispensable over the last few months, thank you to the authors!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A thread from 3 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22212503](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22212503)

And one from 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18699627](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18699627)

<comment><AUTHOR> What's the reason the title was changed? I'd prefer to not fall afoul of whatever rule it is in the future, and I think this title removes the interesting part.

<comment><USER21> The 'misleading' horn of the title guideline. It's obviously not a first release if there have been major threads involving people using it!

Not saying it's a bad submission, by the way—and I hope that including those links didn't make it seem that way.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see. Previously, those people had to compile from source, and very very recently, it moved to providing easy installation. So I think that it's not misleading, but I think a reasonable person could differ.

Nah, it was the title change. I'm a super big fan of the previous discussion links; I know they have a weird controversial history on HN, or at least they did a long time back, but I've always thought it was a nice touch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I started learning rust 2 days ago and I was struggling with RLS in WSL using VSCode. I think it just doesn't work very well with WSL ([https://github.com/rust-lang/rls- vscode/issues/706#event-327...](https://github.com/rust-lang/rls- vscode/issues/706#event-3273465782)).

Very excited to give this a try in WSL2.

<comment><USER22> Okay it's been 3 minutes since I made this post and I've already uninstalled RLS and started using rust-analyzer. It just works out of the box and all my issues with RLS are gone. THANK YOU!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is there any good reason to migrate to this from IntelliJ/CLion ? Do people have any experiences with both and can compare?

</comment><comment><USER24> I gave up on Rust 5 years ago because IDE experience was so inferior to C#, maybe it's time to try again.

I really hope that Rust team will focus on developer experience more, it's astonishing how thinks like code completion or hot reload improve the enjoyment of writing code.

<comment><USER25> It has been a main point of every public roadmap since they started producing them:

2017: [https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/02/06/roadmap.html](https://blog.rust- lang.org/2017/02/06/roadmap.html) 2018: [https://blog.rust- lang.org/2018/03/12/roadmap.html](https://blog.rust- lang.org/2018/03/12/roadmap.html) 2019: [https://blog.rust- lang.org/2019/04/23/roadmap.html](https://blog.rust- lang.org/2019/04/23/roadmap.html)

Improving UX requires them to restructure the compiler and add new features (like NLL) while maintaining backwards compatibility. This is hard and takes time!

Also note that C# is twenty years old and backed by one of the largest corporations in the world. It's pretty rare to get an OSS analyzer that can compete with the likes of Intellij!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I started ramping up on a Rust codebase last week. Intellij is my default IDE so I just continued with it. The plugin seems reasonable enough. It does all the basics like checking types etc.

<comment><USER27> Do you have access to CLion or just Intellij? I ask because CLion has real debugging support that, to my knowledge, Intellij does not have (CLion has built in ties to GDB that the other lacks).

<comment><USER26> I pay for the 'Ultimate' edition which means the different language support is available via plugins. At my day job I toggle between GO & Typescript and some JAVA side projects so setup works well enough for me.

I can't speak to CLion. I use the Go debugger daily and I don't have 'GoLand' perse, just the plugin.

<comment><USER28> I can speak for you; you won't get a debugger with the Rust plugin with IntelliJ. I'm going from memory here, and it's been a few months, but I believe the person working at JetBrains on the Rust plugin said it wasn't going to come out for IntelliJ.

My company is good about buying us tools, so they got me CLion (or, rather, the entire Jetbrains Ultimate Pack or whatever it's called). CLion has made Rust development almost infinitely better than it was just using the Rust plugin on IntelliJ (and this is coming from someone who just uses the Python plugin in IntelliJ even though like 50-75% of his code is Python). I'm a JVM dev masquerading as a Python dev and using Rust for some stuff that Python just isn't up to snuff on (and using the super sweet pyo3 package to make native python modules for it, too). The point is, I get the <3 for IntelliJ; I pay for the super ultimate edition for home use just because I like it _that_ much. But CLion and debugging has made my life so much better than doing it with the Rust plugin in IntelliJ or using VS Code.

Some people are content with log statements, but I'd rather stab myself than debug via logs. It's just not my jam!

Edit: I just thought to note that the CLion + Windows + Debugger game is weaksauce. There may be a way to get it to work in windows, but I don't know a single thing about the Visual Studio build tools or how to get everything to play nice or whatever that might be necessary, so I tried to get it to work through WSL. It worked sometimes, and not others, and I got so frustrated I picked up a Mac for my work refresh rather than another surfacebook, mostly because I was tired of having to jump through hoops to sometimes have a mostly working eventually kinda debugger.

<comment><USER29> The rust plugin updated today with debug support for IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate

<comment><USER28> That is fantastic news! I was curious when they added it and it looks like: [https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij- rust.github.io/com...](https://github.com/intellij-rust/intellij- rust.github.io/commit/d3cda698be5dabfe2ce91932cc506c38ea9b1a5a)

So yeah - nevermind about CLion! I do think it works better than IntelliJ, but it's a subtle, not-easily-quantifiable thing, and it's probably not worth buying it if you're just dabbling and also have IntelliJ Ultimate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is the best way to install rust-analyzer still by downloading a binary manually, or is available through rustup or similar now?

<comment><USER12> The best way to install it is by installing the VSCode plugin, it will download the binary for you. rustup may arrive in the future and make things better for other plugins.

<comment><USER30> I don't use Visual Studio Code, unfortunately. I'm currently using rls through my editor's support for LSP implementations.

<comment><USER31> You can also compile rust-analyzer yourself. It doesn't need any custom stuff from what I saw, and supports Rust stable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Would anybody here know, if there is an implementation of the Build Server Protocol around Cargo (or perhaps in a Rust-Analyzer submodule)?

[https://build-server-protocol.github.io/](https://build-server- protocol.github.io/)

If not currently, is it planned?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never heard of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Anyone tried using this with qtcreator? Link below shows how to use rls with it.

[https://sudonull.com/post/3132-QtCreator-and-its-use-as- IDE-...](https://sudonull.com/post/3132-QtCreator-and-its-use-as-IDE-for-Rust)

</comment><comment><USER34> Is my impression or this could lead to a kind of "rust-in-time" compiler? If the idea is to have a "roslyn" kind of backend then generate on the fly rust code and run it directly is feasible?

This could be wonderful!

<comment><USER30> A Rust REPL would be nice :)

<comment><USER35> There is [https://crates.io/crates/evcxr_repl](https://crates.io/crates/evcxr_repl)

Also some others exist like [https://crates.io/crates/papyrus](https://crates.io/crates/papyrus) but I didn't try this one.

<comment><USER30> Any idea why it's named that way?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Sometimes rust-analyzer stops working. It seems to be related to how many projects you have open. I wish there was like a ui that would allow me to disable it for some projects and enable it for others.

<comment><USER37> You can. Projects in VSCode are called "Workspaces".

Every time I install an extension, I first "Disable" it, which is global. Then I switch to the workspace that needs it and choose "Enable (Workspace)". That way you only have the extensions you need per project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I just tried today. Its super fast when compared to RLS. Types inferred are better. I hope one day we will have release v1.0.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is the trigger for the beginning of my studies of Rust. Can't wait to try it out.

</comment><comment><USER40> Very nice to see VS Code taking such prominence in the rust community.

</comment><comment><USER41> Is it just me or all the videos not playable in the link?

<comment><USER42> They're webm, so if your browser doesn't support that format, it won't play. Safari being the last main one to not support it, so if you're on that, that's why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Misleading title. Alpha releases aren't considered general releases.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it feasible for startups to launch a new app store? - <AUTHOR> Platforms today owe part of their popularity to the success of their app stores: iOS App Store, Google Play, Steam, Chrome plugins, Facebook Platform, etc. However innumerable other app stores, even from brand names, struggle to gain traction.<p>Emerging hardware platforms (e.g. those related to augmented reality, internet of things, smart car, etc.) require an app ecosystem, and startups in this space often presume developers will help build it. Is it feasible for a startup to successfully launch a new app store? Or is that a big red flag? <comment><USER2> Yes, it's always a big red flag to assume that you can expect other people to do your work for you.

All the ecosystems you refer to are backed by big corporate players with massive resources and a vested interest in bringing in an audience for apps, keeping the platform alive, and in providing significant support services - particularly in regards to user acquisition and monetization. What would your company be able to do that would be comparably attractive to others?</comment>


Gary Vaynerchuk demonstrates how to get advertisers by cold calling - <AUTHOR> http://garyvaynerchuk.com/post/78967452/want-to-get-advertisers-on-your-blogvlog-go-and-get-it

<comment><USER2> First off - making that cold call during the video like that was awesome and he did a good job convincing the guy that what he was doing was valuable. People doing business easily talk about business. Its not like they have to initially "like your face."

Going after companies that are already advertising is also an obvious win as their marketing teams probably have a budget that they need to fill.

Overall, hands down, the one thing I would take away from this incredible clip is the fact that pure, unadulterated tenacity is severely underrated.

And as someone else pointed out - time to get a new iMac Gary :) (But only because we told you to!)

<comment><USER3> I would have thought he was known for selling coffee instead of wine. He's got undeniable energy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He's right - sometimes you need to stop working on your product, etc. and just _ask_ someone to buy from you. I've had decent success signing up advertisers directly. Way better CPM than Webmaster Welfare (AdSense).

</comment><comment><USER5> Just read his book cover to cover, its only 130 pages, he has motivated me to get off my ass and do something. It is really easy to fall into the typical social conventions and not do something because "I don't feel like it". Check out a great talk on creating for the long term at RAILSCONF: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWHkcCP3tA&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWHkcCP3tA&feature=player_embedded)

<comment><USER6> Everybody, seriously, watch that video. Awesome. A lot of wisdom about creating community (or "caring about people who care about the shit you do").

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love that Gary made his point live :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Man this guy has some energy, I'm not sure what he's selling but I want it.

<comment><USER9> The guy is good but he needs to tone down his rabid fans and sockpuppets:

[http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BNS1SYRL9X80/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BNS1SYRL9X80/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

Some poor lady reviewed his book and gave it 2-stars, the review laid dormant for months and one day, out of nowhere, 70 people gave it an "unhelpful" mark. That defies all logic and statistics and hints at massive coordination. When she edited her review to acknowledge the astroturfing, they came out in droves and started calling her names. Gary himself was civil, but the guy has a knack for getting all critics to talk to him on the phone so he can "fix" any misunderstandings.

Read it for yourself. It left a bad taste in my mouth anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have met Gary in person and he has a way of making you feel so good about yourself.

He is also a very practical man.

Great guy!

</comment><comment><USER11> Thanks Gary Vee...that was pretty epic. I don't necessarily subscribe to your RSS, but I love finding these little nuggets of gold.

</comment><comment><USER12> The guy runs a $60 million a year empire and won't spring for a new iMac? come on Gary, that thing is an antique now!

<comment><USER13> Thats why he is rich

<comment><USER14> This is probably one of most important lessons taught by my mother: "A person making a million dollars a month but spending million and one dollar is not a wealthy person".

This is why "unfair" wealth distribution is actually good (please note that context for this statement is "developed world" not missmatch in wealth between regions). Since poor people (or poor families) are obviously lousy at managing their resources. Thus the acumulated wealth is actually protected by hoarders - since everybody else would have just spent it anyway.

<comment><USER15> I've known poor families that are the absolute masters at resources management. Your argument is invalid because we have the "hoarders" holding most of the money and doing jack shit economically except putting it in savings. And we have the poor who aren't even paid enough to buy the things they need much less have the ability to save.

You want to see an extreme case of hoarding look no further than Japan. Where the people were so good at saving they never bought a thing which only caused the economy to stall further, ie., "the lost decade".

The accumulation of wealth is never a good thing and we have a long history of booms and busts to prove it.

<comment><USER16> > doing jack shit economically except putting it in savings

I'm not an economist so maybe I'm missing the bigger picture, but by putting the money in a savings account, aren't they increasing the amount of capital available and thus helping to lower interest rates? If nobody hoarded, there would be nobody to borrow from.

<comment><USER17> To an extent, you're right. The Harrod-Domar model of development suggests that the amount of growth of an economy depends on the savings ratio over the capital output ratio.

The reason for that is a bit mathematical, so bear with me:

When Savings = Investment (assuming for simplicity, no foreign trade)

      S=I (1)
      now S=sY (2),

where little s is the savings ratio, and big Y is GDP (output), and

      I=ΔK,

which is to say investment is the difference in capital stock (which is the definition of investment).

      ΔK=k.ΔY

where little k is the capital output ratio (amount of output produced per change in capital),

      so I=k.ΔY (3).

Substituting (2) & (3) into (1) gives you:

      sY=k.ΔY

rearranging gives you

      ΔY/Y = s/k

or in other words, the rate of growth of GDP depends on the propensity of an economy to save, and then how much of that saving goes into output.

So in a sense, you're right, but there's more to it than that.

The problems occur when there's _too much_ hoarding going on. Think of these two theoretical extremes:

1) _Everyone saves, no-one spends._ (Leaving aside starvation and human needs for the moment)

\- Obviously, since no-one spends anything, no-one ever gets paid. No transactions happen at all, and interest rates drop (no-one's borrowing anything!) so people suffer, and experience poorer standards of living as a result. There's a lot of money, but no-one's doing anything with it.

2) _No-one saves at all, and everyone spends what they earn relatively quickly_

\- In comparison to 1), this would mean that you're likely to be being paid a lot, and quicker. You immediately spend this money on goods, so your quality of life (in theory) increases immediately. It doesn't matter that you don't have the money any more, as the next person along that you spent your money on also immediately spends their money. Money travels around fast (the speed of which it does this is known as the velocity of money), and so you're soon being paid more money again, which again improves your quality of life. No saving takes place - but no-one minds as there's so much money going around that bootstrapping a business suddenly becomes a lot easier.

Obviously, 2) is unfortunately rather impossible to achieve - due to various factors such as confidence and the difficulty in getting everyone to spend lots. One noted problem is that rich people spend more money than poor people - but they spend a smaller proportion of their income. Imagine someone with £100,000 pa (after tax). They spend say, 20% of their income at £20,000 a year. Now imagine someone earning a paltry £10,000 pa (after tax). They're likely to spend a higher proportion of their income, say 80% at £8000 a year. 10 of these poorer people will spend £80,000 a year. So the theory goes, it's better to have more people all spending and increasing the velocity of money, than a few very rich people all hoarding.

In the real world, savings matter, because you can't get everyone to spend lots of money all the time. However, these savings accounts can't be high enough to jeopardise spending. It's a bit of a tightrope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I venture to say Gary Vee has a hood pass to most any place in this world. Including my heart.</comment>


You Can Now Serve Divorce Papers on Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/you-can-now-serve-divorce-papers-on-facebook-1695933226

<comment><USER2> _" This is now an accepted way to start the process of ending a marriage."_

No, one judge allowed one person to do it in NY, after attempts to find the person to be served had failed. That hardly means that it's an "accepted way" to serve legal process on someone.</comment>


Nobody cares what tools you use - <AUTHOR> http://rubypond.com/blog/nobody-cares-what-tools-you-use

<comment><USER2> Pretty good post, but I think it is generalizing possibly a bit too much and could be misinterpreted:

1\. 'ask yourself "is this going to make me deliver the product faster?". If the answer is no, don't do it'

While on a whole it's true, but some aspects of process (change control, QA, etc.) can:

a. make the delivery of the product go more smoothly, b. increase the quality of the product, c. decrease time needed to fix bugs, fix data, or eat crow after product launch, and d. decrease chaos, confusion, and late hours spent trying to figure out what part of several issues caused some other issue.

2\. 'nobody cares what tools you use'

Not true. Some shops hate (insert anything here) with a vengeance or have something in place that prohibits what you could use or how you could do something.

At the same time, I agree for the most part that _users_ , on the whole, don't care how it is implemented.

That said, I certainly agree with the notes on Cucumber, etc. being something that seems good to the developer but that the business becomes less interested in as time goes on.

I really enjoyed doing full-on XP before with index cards, etc. Luckily we did that with our manager representing the customer. Whenever there has actually been a customer truly involved in the process directly, no matter what you do with wireframes, showing them results at end of iteration, etc., the customer (whether it be one or many) always has a personality and thought and work processes that affect the development process. You can slap Jira and workflow, etc. on it, but it doesn't matter. You have to work with the customer- there is no choice.

<comment><USER3> The shops may hate it, but if the software can be better written in a different language and the software is important for their business it doesn't matter - either they use the best or some other company does which then replaces them.

Most of the places this happens are properly already ineffective companies - which doesn't notice they aren't effective anymore and therefore gets eaten by bigger companies.

<comment><USER4> There are sometimes integration costs, though--- if the company runs almost everything on a Microsoft stack, and you deliver them something that runs on a typical Unix stack, or vice versa, it's not going to necessarily be very smooth for them, even if the actual functionality is great.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that is where the "best for the business" disclaimer comes in. You need to make the decision based not only on your own development efficiency but those you are impacting too.

A recent example is at my current client, quite a large company with a lot of "legacy" investment. I can't work without using git as part of my workflow any more, but I need not mandate it for this new project. Instead we stick with svn, use git-svn to give us the features we need, and bananajour for sharing code easily amongst ourselves. We've in a sense sandboxed ourselves so our preferences don't impact the infrastructure team.

As tends to happen, they eventually start to wonder what all the fuss is and want a demo of why it's cool. Now others are using git-svn too, the barrier to overcome throughout the rest of the business is rapidly decreasing.

I realise it's an easy example, but with a little creativity there is often a similar solution to most problems regarding platform/framework/etc. Not always, but often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For the most part, I agree with this, except where people do care what tools you use for the wrong reasons. For example, a VP of Something dictates that you use DB2 just because he wants to be on the good side of IBM. Or VP of Something Else says you can't use Apache because she distrusts open source and says you have to use IIS with your Java application.</comment>


Google Launches Chrome for Mac - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/12/08/google-chrome-for-mac-2/

<comment><USER2> It looks like they've just taken the release that we've already had (184.108.40.206) and made it more public. If you've already had the developer channel build, then you've already got it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER3> If you're on the developer channel you'll continue to be on the developer channel. That is, eventually a stable 4.0 release will happen, but because you're on the dev channel you'll be updated to an unstable 5.X beta.

At least that's how it is on Windows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks good, imported all my bookmarks from Firefox, seems really snappy and responsive. Unfortunately extensions do not currently work under OSX, so no AdSweep extension. Once extensions work I'll give it a shot at replacing Firefox on my desktop. I can't go back to the web with advertisements, I just can't.

<comment><USER5> <http://glimmerblocker.org/>

Proxying blocker for OSX. Works really well.

<comment><USER4> Worked for me, thanks! I did have to log out and log back in again for the system proxy settings to get applied though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sticking to my Safari – an extra browser is excess.</comment>


Malware hits millions of Android phones - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36744925 <comment><USER2> Some story reported on by arstechnica, submitted twice[0][1], but so far uncommented upon.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12051850](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12051850)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12054240](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12054240)

 _Added in edit: I 've put in this comment in case people want to find a different source of the story, suspecting that it might be more interesting to HN users to have arstechnica as the source. Clearly some people think that's worth a downvote. <shrug> You're training me even more not to care about HN._</comment>


Cracking a System in Which Cheating Ran Rampant in Atlanta Schools  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/education/18oneducation.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> Cheating seems to be like fraud, if state funds (or state-backed loans) are going to be awarded for it.</comment>


Kommute for iOS – offline access to your favorite websites - <AUTHOR> http://www.kommute.io/ <comment><USER2> Looks great, will you be doing an Android version?

<comment><AUTHOR> I really should have started with an Android version. It was much more of a challenge in iOS. I'm working on an Android version as we speak!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your windows aesthetics? - <AUTHOR> Do you use a tiling window manager? If so, which one and why? Do you use a non-standard to your distro window manager? If so why?
Are you strictly full screen terminal? Terminals with tabs?
Do you use regular old floating windows? (the default)
Who's gone full "ricing" of their desktop, micro managing their launcher and status bar and fonts?
And finally which of you are monsters that leave a litter of various icons all over your desktops? Yuck. <comment><USER2> > Do you use a tiling window manager?

No.

> Do you use a non-standard to your distro window manager?

No, it is one of the offerings: Fvwm2

> Why?

Because it does its job, without much fuss, and is infinitely configurable. It does what I want, when I want, how I want.

> Are you strictly full screen terminal?

No. rxvt or xterms, one with a screen session inside with several terminals in the screen session.

> Do you use regular old floating windows?

Yes. Very few windows ever get maximized, those that do only stay that way long enough to accomplish whatever it is that needs the area, then they get put back to floating.

> Who's gone full "ricing" of their desktop

No. Never saw the point myself.

> And finally which of you are monsters that leave a litter of various icons > all over your desktops? Yuck.

You've revealed an opinion of your own there.... :) But, I've done this on the win work machine before. I'm also primarily a visual-spatial learner, so to me it is not a litter, it is the icons just where I left them.

What used to p __* me of about the work win machine was when the screen would resize (external monitor vs. laptop panel) and win would rearrange the icon locations. That screwed everything visual-spatial up related to the organization. And what p __ __* me off even more was that when the big monitor would be reattached, no one at MS thought things through enough to put the icons back where they were the last time that screen was attached.

Eventually I just turned off the desktop icons, since having them randomly move around was worse than simply not having them visible at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Do you use a tiling window manager?

I have been more than happy with xmonad, my current tiling window manager [1]. I have been wanting to give sway [2] with Wayland a go as well. I like using it due to the lack of distracting animation and having great keyboard support, allowing me to be more productive — or at least feel like I am.

Besides servers, I didn't really do much with Linux until a year ago or so. I ended up picking Arch after seeing Jon Gjengset's stream [3] and it having great documentation. Still, it was a bit of a surprise to be met with a blank screen after installation.

1\. [https://i.imgur.com/TwiH6ks.png](https://i.imgur.com/TwiH6ks.png)

2\. [https://github.com/swaywm/sway](https://github.com/swaywm/sway)

3\. [https://youtu.be/ycMiMDHopNc](https://youtu.be/ycMiMDHopNc)</comment>


Weave and Docker for Mac: The bridge between local and remote services - <AUTHOR> http://blog.runnable.com/post/142665542481/weave-docker-for-mac-the-bridge-between-local <comment><USER2> Why not just run Linux locally? Mac OS X is BSD, not Linux, which means its build tools & environment are subtly incompatible. You're always going to be chafing if you develop anywhere other than in your deployment environment.

Linux is superlative for desktop & development use. It supports things like tiling window managers far better than does a Mac. It's free. The hardware is far more affordable. Although this is definitely a matter of taste, I find Linux far more _usable_ than a Mac. I will grant that Mac laptops are lightweight & thin.

It just seems weird to me to go through all these contortions to develop software for Linux on a Mac or Windows box when it's far easier IMHO to just … run Linux.

<comment><USER3> I love Linux, but saying that the desktop use is "superlative" is a bit, let me don my fire retardant suit, wrong. It's a decent enough desktop system, but it falls markedly behind in terms of tooling.

There's simply a large number of high quality tools which are not available for Linux, which means that you have to resort to an open source tool which, while decent (and sometimes even fantastic), are still nowhere near the quality of many closed source tools.

I wish this would change, and I do what I can to make it change, but the simple reality is that depending on the tools you want to (or need to) use, Linux is behind the game.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with your very first statement: Why not just run Linux locally? Except, I would recommend a local VM. Best(ish) of both worlds.

<comment><USER4> >There's simply a large number of high quality tools which are not available for Linux

Developer tools? Like what?

<comment><USER3> Visual Studio, XCode, Adobe <insert product here>, anything by Autodesk...

As good as alternatives like GIMP are, they simply can't compete with their Mac/Windows alternatives like Photoshop.

<comment><USER5> Both XCode and VisualStudio are proprietary IDEs designed to support building apps for their respective operating systems. If you're writing a Windows native application, you will find Visual Studio on Windows to work the best, likewise if you're developing a Mac OS X native application then XCode on OS X is the smart choice.

In my opinion, neither one is well suited for building a native Linux application nor the sort of applications that would need a Docker container in which to run (web application, etc.)

<comment><USER3> XCode has a fantastic interface for writing Swift, which is no longer specific to Apple hardware. It also has a decent (if not fantastic) IDE for basic C and C++ development. Visual Studio has some great plugins for not only generic C and C++ development, it also has great integrations available for JavaScript and Python (which many developers prefer to use over even JetBrains fantastic cross-platform offerings).

If you look at Go, Python, and Ruby web development, there is nothing special about the Linux environment that these programming languages do not provide built-in solutions to. Sockets, file handles, threading and process management are all abstracted to the level that you can run the same code on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

So, in _my_ opinion, it comes down to which OS you enjoy the most for your development work; you can make any of them work for whatever type of development you want to do (particularly something as high level as web development).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > sudo curl -L git.io/weave -o /usr/local/bin/weave

Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

<comment><USER7> But it redirects to https. That's secure, right?

<comment><USER6> It redirects to HTTPS when you _aren 't_ being MITM'd with malware..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hey,

We provide an alternate solution ([1]Wormhole) that covers this scenario (and others). The main differences with e.g. Weave are:

\- Non Docker-specific

\- Easier to deploy, in my opinion ofc :-)

\- Based on Open Source (You can just deploy SoftEhter's vanilla client as the agent)

\- We don't use vxlan, just SSL encapsulation.

\- Actually, every client will only generate outbound SSL connections, so chances are you won't need to reconfigure any firewalls or network gear for Wormhole to work.

\- By default, chances are you won't overlap with the provided IP addressing (non-public, non-RFC1918 IP space)

\- Multiplatform Windows / Linux / Os X

\- API available to create and deploy networks and clients

\- Our architecture requires traffic to go up to a central server and down to destination, so there's added latency. In my tests I've found this to not penalise performance for most applications as other solutions based on extra layers (I.e. Vxlan) like Weave.

Don't get me wrong, I think Weave is brilliant. We're just an alternative that aims for simplicity. There's some overlapping, but we probably have different markets.

[1]: [https://wormhole.network](https://wormhole.network)

</comment><comment><USER9> Offtopic, but does anybody know how the diagrams in this article were generated? I'd love a simple piece of software to generate beautiful, straightforward pictures like this to explain architectural problems.

<comment><USER10> I don't think that it generated these diagrams, but you should check out planttext ([http://www.planttext.com/](http://www.planttext.com/)) - makes UML diagrams easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why do you need to connect to remote services using weave? Should the stage environment be separated from you development one? Anyway nice article. Thanks

<comment><USER12> We have around 18 different microservices each with their own configuration and repos. Setting them all up, keeping them up to date and managing them locally is a pain (and also turns my laptop into an inferno). Our staging environment is on Runnable which spins up all 18 of these in an isolated stack so I do no have to worry about configs or management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I dream of a company that installs Linux on some of the most popular desktops PROPERLY, and charges users 100$ to install it, and helps you maintain your Linux desktop over the years.

Many have tried, no one has succeeded.

Canonical had an opportunity to do this... Instead, they had to do "Enterprise" stuff. Bah.

</comment><comment><USER14> HN discussion about Weave being slow [0]. I dont know if the issue has been addressed since it was first posted.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9498139](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9498139)

<comment><USER15> It has, now Weave is kinda fast :)

See [http://weave.works/weave-docker-networking-performance- fast-...](http://weave.works/weave-docker-networking-performance-fast-data- path/) [http://rp.delaat.net/2015-2016/p50/report.pdf](http://rp.delaat.net/2015-2016/p50/report.pdf)

Full disclosure: I work at Weaveworks

<comment><USER16> It's terribly slow unless you don't care about encryption: [https://github.com/weaveworks/weave/issues/1925](https://github.com/weaveworks/weave/issues/1925)

The per-packet processing overhead is a real and unresolved problem.

I'm using Rancher's networking now instead. It uses ipsec between hosts, so everything gets handled by code paths which have been optimized in the kernel, and performance is good (especially if you have a not-ancient CPU and have the AES-NI instruction - then wirespeed gigabit works with acceptable overhead).

I like Weave's decentralized architecture and wish it were realistic to use it.

If they are going to stick with a user-space solution they probably need to use DPDK or one of the other high-performance software defined networking toolkits, which tend to process packets using a SIMD approach.

<comment><USER17> (weaveworks person here)

If you check out the PDF that fons posted above, [http://rp.delaat.net/2015-2016/p50/report.pdf](http://rp.delaat.net/2015-2016/p50/report.pdf), then you will see pretty extensive testing showing that Weave Net, flannel, and Docker Networking have similar VXLAN performance for unencrypted traffic. In all cases, it is good enough. Alas the testers were unable to get Calico working.

The question is: when do you want top performance for encrypted traffic? Most of users want encryption for the wide area or public cloud, and when they can't use a VPC. Our solution is pretty good for these cases. Obviously at some point we'll enable IPSEC too.

<comment><USER16> Widearea/public cloud & non-VPC use cases are my use cases.

I really wish this weren't true, but your solution is not pretty good yet. For now, if you need encryption, it's useless.

Machines spend their life handling packet overhead. Application performance suffers horrendously, and the scalability of the application goes from excellent to terrible.

Weave looks really good if you give it easy tests involving big packets. But if you give it a workload involving many small packets (which in today's microservices architectures is not exactly uncommon), it stops working.

<comment><USER17> What is a small packet here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Must admit I thought this was the weave framework google/nest are pushing.</comment>


California's inherited low property tax rate highly profitable to elite group - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-property-taxes-elites-201808-htmlstory.html# <comment><USER2> Whenever CA's prop 13 is brought up, I find it interesting when the article doesn't mention that commercial properties are also covered. They can be owned eternally by a corporate entity instead of paying property taxes anything near resembling current commercial values. This one at least mentions it, but the odd part is that this was used as the justification of extending inherited tax rate grants to families, instead of removing it from commercial properties.</comment>


1.5 yrs ago, I built this to show blockchain capacity. Now most blocks are full - <AUTHOR> http://www.simple.gy/projects/blockchain/ <comment><USER2> What happens when it gets full?

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://i.giphy.com/4IuDIJDlV1HBS.gif](http://i.giphy.com/4IuDIJDlV1HBS.gif)</comment></comment>


Google Discovered the Value of Surveillance - <AUTHOR> https://longreads.com/2019/09/05/how-google-discovered-the-value-of-surveillance/ <comment><AUTHOR> The "Aware Home" as imagined as a closed-loop system would be so cool, but I imagine it would be hard to actually secure anything like that successfully as a system owner. It seems like we have gotten to the point where all security is traded for privacy, in that an individual believes that it's too hard to manage tech that would keep their systems secure, so they give corporations the job, in exchange for at least their personal privacy.</comment>


Interview with Ken Thompson (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/interview-with-ken-thompson/229502480 <comment><USER2> That last answer reminds me of my researcher colleagues :D. Are most them like that?

</comment><comment><USER3> Who here thinks they should have made "an object-oriented C" instead? I was under the impression that a big part of C's success (as a lingua france / lowest common denominator) is its minimalism. It forces only a few concepts on its users.

<comment><USER4> > "an object-oriented C" ... minimalism

That's Objective-C in a nutshell. Or was, anyway. The most minimal way to have useful OO on C.

Of course, you could make it even simpler if you drop the "must be a superset of C"-requirement.

<comment><USER5> Maybe the most minimal, but not the most efficient, and C's minimalism is only useful because it lets you be as efficient as the hardware will be. Without that goal, the Lisps are more minimal than both C and Objective-C.

<comment><USER6> Few people can make sense out of Lisp and fewer actually like it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" The language grew up with one of the rewritings of the system and, as such, it became perfect for writing systems. ... It became the perfect language for what it was designed to do."_

Really? Perfect? Why then are there entire books filled with "C gotchas" or "C traps and pitfalls"?

The language is an inconsistent, inelegant, error-prone mess that has left us with decades of serious bugs and security vulnerabilities. Yet Thompson describes it as "perfect". Sounds like he's been letting all the prizes he got get to his head.

Sure. The language was very influential, and much of the software we use every day was and still is written in it. That doesn't make it perfect, just popular -- often for legacy reasons, not because it's "perfect for writing systems".

<comment><USER8> C was certainly a major step forward at the time, but he does seem oblivious to its flaws (at least in this interview). I was also disappointed to see how he casually trashed C++ at the same time. Not very diplomatic.

<comment><USER9> No it wasn't, because we already had Lisp and system programming languages like ESPOL, NEWP, PL/I, PL/M, PL/8,.... before C got released outside AT&T.

<comment><USER6> Which tells you what?

<comment><USER9> That C was certainly a major step _backwards_ at the time, only adopted thanks to AT&T being forbiden to sell UNIX, thus deciding to offer the source code for a nominal fee to anyone that wanted to get a license to the source code.

Or to use a more modern example, UNIX was the browser and C was JavaScript.

<comment><USER6> I never coded in the languages from your earlier post; I'd never have wanted to either. C was and is elegant and beautiful. It isn't so popular because of a AT&T. Look at Microsoft's power in the business world. Even with all their "practices", .Net still hasn't been beaten by Java in terms of popularity and widespread use. .Net is good, not saying it isn't, just so that's clear.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, more than 200 elegant and beautiful documented cases of UB on ANSI C11 standard.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Challenge: 12 hours to turn $400.00 into as much as possible - <AUTHOR> http://challenge.pen.io/

<comment><USER2> The owner of the site is an 'internet marketing guru'.

Easy publicity stunt, and probably not going to teach anybody much.

</comment><comment><USER3> So what's happening here? Why are you doing this, and how are you going about it?

<comment><AUTHOR> not entirely sure. Its not my page, just thought it was an interesting experiment</comment></comment>


Emily Chang - eHub (Startup Camp) - <AUTHOR> http://www.emilychang.com/go/ehub/ <comment><USER2> i really hope this is a repost.... if not. lawl

</comment><comment><USER3> Camp?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wondered too... (That's how they present themselves (or are presented) in other blogs.</comment></comment>


When to drop the F-bomb and other negotiation techniques - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-04/how-not-to-negotiate-like-congress#r=hp-ls

<comment><USER2> I find it socially unacceptable to refer to the word "fuck" as "the f-bomb", it makes me cringe every time.</comment>


Facebook may soon allow ad targeting by email, user ID and phone number - <AUTHOR> http://www.insidefacebook.com/2012/08/30/facebook-may-soon-allow-ad-targeting-by-email-user-id-and-phone-number/

<comment><USER2> In the adtech world, this is what's known as CRM retargeting.

While most retargeting entails showing ads to people who visited a site and were cookied there, lots of businesses have customer data but don't do much on the web. Aka, they don't get a lot of visitors to begin with.

So they can go to a CRM retargeting provider like LiveRamp, give them their e-mail list, and then Liveramp returns a cookie segment that has some percentage of the people from that list in it. This data comes from companies that set unique cookies for logged in users and sell that data.

The business can then show ads to those people without them ever having visited their site.

Now Facebook's doing this. I think this will be pretty popular, especially for non-profits with big e-mail lists but not a lot of site visitors to retarget.</comment>


Surf the web with a friend without hassle - <AUTHOR> http://channel.me

<comment><USER2> Pretty cool idea, but when using this app aren't there a few different people fighting for control? I feel like that might get kind of frustrating.</comment>


Google Sync Keeps Contacts and Calendars in Sync on Your Mobile Phone - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5149741/google-sync-keeps-contacts-and-calendars-in-sync-on-your-mobile-phone <comment><USER2> Related to synchronisation with Google, I bought an Android Dev Phone a couple of days ago and one of the things that annoyed me was you have to sync your contacts and calendar with Google Contacts and Google Calendar respectively.

I'm using a Mac and getting Address Book to sync with Google Contacts was simple, but while Google Calendar offers 2-way sync with iCal, what it does is Google Calendar is the master copy. Now that totally turned me off. Because I'm using iCal and not Google Calendar, it means that right after I do my first sync, my calenders will be empty (the existing events on iCal will not be sync-ed over) and when if I ever decide to stop using the G phone and Google Calendar, it means that I will start with an empty Calendar again.

On top of that, I'm actually using an iPhone as my main phone. The G phone is for development purposes, but I like to switch to the G phone for short periods of time so that I get to use it and have a feel of how it works and to use my own apps. What this means is that I'm doing a 3-way sync and I'm am rather concern that a single point of failure will wipe everything out.

I also disliked the fact that I can't sync my photos and music over to the G phone automatically.

I'm not sure if there's a good solution for this, but maybe a synchronising problem like this is begging for a startup to solve (something like MobileMe but platform-agnostic with hooks into different platforms and apps?)</comment>


Escher: An Elm-like web framework for Julia - <AUTHOR> http://escher-jl.org/ <comment><USER2> In my version of firefox it renders without the css centering, then centers, then makes my browser stop responding, then gives a blank page.

<comment><USER3> At the risk of too much me-too-ism, this is almost impressively bad as a showcase of a framework. I don't have much interest in debugging this, but disabling the 92 XHR invocations prevents this for me.

For anyone not seeing the issue: [https://i.imgur.com/nT1YoBp.gif](https://i.imgur.com/nT1YoBp.gif)

The hot-loading of code is a very nice feature to develop with, but I'm curious to see it in action. Sometimes it feels like Clojurescript's Figwheel won't be topped in this regard (certainly the case with some of the React/webpack tooling).

Nice to see some advancement in Julia, oftentimes I don't hear anything being made with the language and only hear of development in the language itself. I don't see any compelling reason to switch yet but perhaps this will drive cross-pollination in other, similar projects (Jupyter for instance).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice. This is pretty similar to Mathematica's user interface functionality and Dynamic mechanism:

[http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Dynamic.html](http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Dynamic.html)

[http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Manipulate.html](http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Manipulate.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> This could be useful for creating notebooks without using Jupyter. If it works, that is. I'm only seeing a blank page.

<comment><USER6> That's been my thoughts. Jupyter is ok but the interface really has stagnated, which is peculiar because it's not that complex of a front end. Though Escher is promising it's not production ready/quality for my tastes (which is getting better in the Julia world but definitely still an ongoing need to address).</comment></comment>


Researchers discover how and where imagination occurs in human brains - <AUTHOR> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-human-brains.html <comment><USER2> Translation: "In an ambiguous brain scan, psychologists find exactly what they were looking for -- support for a vague, unfalsifiable theory." Another hand- waving psychology result that will be forgotten in six months.</comment>