Ask HN: What are your heuristics for deciding which HN links to click on? - <AUTHOR> I've realised that I've built up a set of heuristics for deciding what to read on HN:<p>- don't click on anything with the word "quantum" in it — it's either too technical for me (physics or computing) or mainstream fluff with no substance<p>- don't click on very specific programming language links, unless they're about Python or frontend web stuff (just not interested in languages I don't use)<p>- will read anything from certain domains — danluu.com, stratechery.com, wikipedia.org, fermatslibrary.org<p>- won't click on the latest iteration of "ML tutorial for beginners" that makes it to the front page (not the right audience, but nice to see this stuff getting popular)<p>What are your heuristics? <comment><USER3> Hacker News is basically slowly but surely converting me more into a technical person. When I came here first, I mostly looked at the psychological articles and some web articles. But when I felt a bit more focused and bold I'd go for more technical articles. I have been doing this ever since and I have noticed there are two types of technical articles I really like:

1\. any computer graphics reverse engineer article, or reverse engineering regarding a game console, or the posts about Dolphin the gamecube emulator.

2\. any security article. Especially about exploits or vulnerabilities.

I was surprised at how well I understood them. But I think in part it has to do with that I sometimes venture out and expand my comfort zone. I keep on expanding my comfort zone through Hacker News, it really supplemented my computer science education quite well.

I also use it a lot as a search engine to find high quality educational content. All those upvotes matter. And if the upvotes don't matter -- the educational resource is quite bad -- then there's always some insightful comment about a good resource. I learned a thing or two about deep learning this way and how it relates to topology. I've never read anything about topology before! That's just really cool that some resources can give you a basic intuition about it.

<comment><USER4> It's surprising what you can learn by osmosis! You don't necessarily have to understand everything but you absorb over time, just like how children learn their first language I suppose

<comment><USER5> I found that following humor blogs about certain specialist area's also help a lot with the osmosis. One example is DBAreactions. I'm Dev/Ops, so naturally I have to touch on DBA tasks but not enough to get fully involved in the field. Following the humor blog and sometimes stumbling upon a joke I don't get tells me there is some knowledge that must be so common (ie important) in that field that I miss. So then a task arises for me to learn to laugh at the joke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've found that when there are a decent number more comments than upvotes (say 1.25+ comment / upvote ratio) it is generally a controversial topic, probably with a huge amount of subcomments under the top comment. If it is in my domain, I tend to ignore it, as I've often heard both sides many times before and its draining to see debates play out again. If it isn't in my domain and it is interesting, I'll check it out and often learn something. If its outside my domain and not a particularly interesting topic, if i'm bored i may check it out to entertain myself for a bit

for Ask HN, the comment / upvote ratio seems like it indicates a topic that people are interested in and want to share their two cents (like this one), rather than a controversial one

i also click on most links from wikipedia, as any wikipedia entry that gets to the front page seems like it must be very interesting / esoteric. however they turn out generally to be hit or miss

<comment><USER7> Why is it draining to see debates play out again? I know what you mean though, I feel same way, but just curious your take on it.

<comment><USER6> For me it's most draining when observing debates about the field I work in where the comments involved display a mixed level of knowledge of the subject. A lot of times the consensus opinion will in my eyes be under informed or missing some context, and actively harmful to a productive dialogue. So I feel a sense of frustration and helplessness. i work in biotech, and biopharma is an incredibly politically visible and controversial industry now, and I feel like a lot of the public discourse is driven by people who mean well but haven't taken the time to understand how the field works

Of course, it is absolutely critical to have diverse perspectives, but I feel like everyone could row in the same direction if we were on the same page

<comment><USER8> Applies to journalism, not only HN comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I almost never click through on the source link initially. The only times I do are if the topic is something _very_ specifically related to my personal interests / work, and/or from a reputable domain, and possibly only if it has a lot of upvotes. I'd say that links to github.com, and arxiv.org are among the top ones that I'm likely to click through to immediately.

OTOH, anything that looks even vaguely interesting gets an upvote, since that is the easiest way to "save" a HN link for later (the "favorite" feature requires you to at least click through to the discussion page first, which is just enough friction that I mostly don't bother).

Anything in between those two extremes, my heuristic is to click through to the discussion page, spend some time reading the comments, and then decide if the source article is worth reading or not. I feel like you can usually tell a lot about the quality of the underlying article based on what kind of discussion it generates.

<comment><USER10> > _I almost never click through on the source link initially._

Too many on HN use this "hack" to avoid reading the article. It can become somewhat humorous when an entire comment thread debates points clarified in the first sentence of TFA.

<comment><USER9> That is a fair point.

<comment><USER11> I think reading the comments first is a fine strategy if you haven't decided to post a comment of your own. If you _do_ comment, as a good citizen you should probably check the article before submitting your reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 1\. anything crystal / ruby related

2\. rust and golang related stuff, so I can further justify my choice of crystal

3\. security exploits

4\. dramas, like angry co-founders duking it out on HN, love that stuff

5\. philosophy of mind / consciousness related stuff

6\. stuff that tells me when I can get a consumer-grade quantum computer (never happens, or can only multiply 3 * 5 for 50 million dollars)

7\. anything that sounds like a horizontally and vertically scalable database solution -- been looking for something like citus or google cloud spanner, but with a $5/month starting plan since forever ago. Note: a $90/month starting plan != scalable imo, as it doesn't allow me to justify developing with it.

8\. "here is a super fast hash table implementation"

9\. "new data structure" (happens almost never)

10\. "programming language performance benchmark"

11\. microsoft/google/facebook/apple/amazon hating never gets old

12\. news that [language I care about] now runs on web assembly (never happens)

13\. "RSA encryption broken by efficient factorization of large semiprimes" (world would end for a few days)

14\. proof or disproof of p = np

15\. autonomous driving stuff

things to avoid:

1\. anything related to react/vue, though I might click if it's vue just for them sticking it to react

2\. anything about VC stuff, because I don't come here to read that

3\. news that [language I don't like] now runs on web assembly (every day)

4\. x new javascript framework

</comment><comment><USER13> I click on most things that start with "10 ways to..." and then immediately regret it. I then repeat the process with "Kubernuts (is/isn't) the best thing ever" and then immediately regret it. And then I click on the comments of any article that I have industry specific knowledge on and tell everyone why their opinion is wrong without reading the article.

Gosh I need a new way to kill time.

<comment><USER14> Sounds about like me. Except I mostly lurk in the comments. I keep HN as my home tab though, so every morning I scroll through top posts and look for what appeals to me. Generally articles that are either a) dumb, and then I regret reading them, or b) too technical or too long, so I save them to Pocket, and then never read them. (I do actually read some articles, it just seems like a majority of the time I save articles to read and then never get around to it)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> \- Anything with >500 upvotes that isn't general news, the more technical/esoteric, the better.

\- "How to write/build a [something]" if that "something" is fairly low-level, like a compiler.

\- Just about anything involving bees.

\- Highly-voted threads with mundane headlines -- i.e. either the content is good enough to not need a catchy headline, or its headline has been changed to be less clickbaity -- which might mean the mods thought it was worth saving rather than flagging into oblivion.

\- Virtually any Show HNs that happen to make it to the front page

\- Ask HNs that have > 50 comments.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > Ask HNs that have > 50 comments.

Apparently you make exceptions for interesting cases:D (currently this thread is at 21 comments)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Click on:

\- stuff I know a bit about, and can perhaps offer some anecdata on rather than commentary (because you're all far smarter than me on everything, and that's wonderful) \- stuff that reminds me that working for all these hours is worth it after all (because I need it) \- stuff that tells me that working for all these hours is preposterous and I should re-assess what I'm doing (because I need this, too) \- Ask HN posts that show some human humility and a wanting to learn

</comment><comment><USER17> I wrote a simple extension for hckrnews.com to hide submissions based on words and domains: [https://gist.github.com/ivmirx/66a0015884d44297ea05a8c54d935...](https://gist.github.com/ivmirx/66a0015884d44297ea05a8c54d93566d)

I filter out all the languages and tech that I don't use, corporate news, US news, crypto news, and some bad journalism.

<comment><USER18> This seems like a great idea which I wish was in higher prevalence - <USER2> a simple algorithm yourself that you can understand easily and which can't be gamed, because it is unique.

This seemed to be the promise of spam filters - you get to train them yourself! The difficulty is that it becomes so complex and vague that you can't undo its biases easily. It also reinforces the past at the expense of closing openings for the future to leak in.

Thanks for the code!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you want pure technical crunchy hits of great goodness (no pol no fluff no bs) the best heuristic I've developed is to look for the things that reach front page with 30~40 pts but have almost no comments. These usually tend to be PDFs of research papers describing some awesome but highly advanced or technical cool thing, right on the edge of comprehensibility.

My theory is, we're all crouched around like proto-humans before the Monolith, upvoting and hoping someone bold and clever will touch it, or better yet, that one of the aliens who put it there will show up and tell us what it is. ;-P

</comment><comment><USER10> I start by scanning through the front page and clicking "HIDE" on:

      Betterridge Headlines
      Articles with a (YEAR)
      Articles with a [PDF]
      "Do X in Language"
      Blockchain-related
      Mac-related
      "Ask HN: List things"
      Hiring notices

\- Specific domains:

      All newspapers
      All longform sites
      All clickbait sites
      All health information
      Medium
      Github
      Wikipedia
      Stratechery

This usually clears out all the time-sinks, ads, "Github spam" and clickbait. And sometimes you find a Tesla article or 2 that's been pushed back to the 2nd or 3rd page.

<comment><USER20> I HIDE:

"X" the good parts

"X" driven design

Building a toy "X" in toy language "Y" in Z minutes

How to interview [another random internet opinion]

Anything that's crawling with cp-grey types.

Anecdote about hallucinogen curing every psychological problem

2-week Microstudy on nootropic improving attention

<comment><USER10> > _Anything that 's crawling with cp-grey types._

Is this like CGP Grey?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've basically learned web design and development through HN.

The only links I click on are related to making static websites without any frameworks. Otherwise, if the websites domain is a new one, I'll click on it to see if the website has an interesting font or layout.

I never check the comments on HN for many things non-STEM, more specifically economics, philosophy, psychology, education, academic research, political science, fashion, and more. Those comments are generally filled with people trying to use first principles poorly to speak on subjects they don't have industrial experience in.

The best resources I've gained via HN

1\. practicaltypography.com - Basically my foundation when it comes to designing any text in personal documents, websites, video games and more.

2\. worrydream.com - The best HCI resource freely available on the internet. It opened my eyes to the sorry state of software with respect to usability.

3\. Data Oriented Design - Research into this field gave me a definitive answer on the merits of continuing to struggle with learning functional programming versus going all in on traditional C style development.

</comment><comment><USER22> You rock. This is possibly one of the most interesting questions I periodically ask myself... And never thought of asking the HN community! Bravo.

</comment><comment><USER23> \- Golang.

\- "X is dead/dying" just because I want to see if there's any sort of logic to it and to see the comments (which can actually be pretty useful)

\- Psychology-related things (especially about depression, PTSD, burnout)

\- Tutorials that I may find useful

\- Security/exploits (like the latest ESLint issue)

\- Apple-related articles (because I use Apple products but know they aren't perfect and want to see both sides)

</comment><comment><USER24> A post with a few comments ranks much higher for me than one with just upvotes. The main reason I upvote something is because I want it to have more exposure so more people will comment on it. Having an expert in the field or the author of the paper etc just pop in and start answering questions is my favorite thing about HN.

Unsurprisingly, I check the comments first, unless it specifically piques my interest (which isn't hard), and then I leave the comments open as a parent tab to check later because if I'm interested in a topic I'm interested in opinions of it.

These are more likely for me to click through to:

* Databases and programming languages: theory, standards, etc.

* Specific languages I like reading about: rust, go, .net

* A little bit of general world news

* Psycology

* Security

* Anything really technical. I like picking up on new modes of thought even if I don't understand the topic.

* Anything that stays on the homepage for a while I'm likely to check out

</comment><comment><USER14> I tend to (as others have mentioned) focus on languages or fields I'm familiar with. Lots of articles on frontend stuff, and JS libraries, even ones I don't use. Mainly just to get a feel for what is out there. A lot of the time I like to read comments more than the actual article on a lot of things, because I find opinions on HN (specifically comments that have long threads with multiple replies) to offer a better understanding of things than the actual article. A lot of articles are somewhat biased, intentional or not, and reading the comments (most of the time) offers a better perspective from people actually using/working in/experiencing, things the articles are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER25> When in doubt from the title:

unknown domains, blogspot.com, some known high-quality sites > Github > general news/media sites > medium.com, hackernoon.com, dev.to

I tend to look at Show HN. I look at the new queue a lot, less so at the front page.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't consciously or systemically apply any heuristics, but if I think back on the topics that tend to pique my interest: Business and VC, economics, infosec, tech politics, FL/OSS drama, psychology / human nature, and oddities that seem out of place here (because those stories must be especially interesting!). Occasionally web dev tools if they look like something I might use — for example, new static site generators.

I nearly always read the comments first and rarely click through to the original story. The comments are the point of HN for me.

</comment><comment><USER27> I find myself thinking about whether the comments will have anything interesting in them. If I think there will be then I click on the comments page and read through the top few comments. If there's a lot of discussion about the OP link itself only then will I actually click the link. I do the same for reddit.

Side note: I think that there are many articles/blogs on the internet that have less information than a good reddit/HN comment and this is why many users of HN and Reddit go to the comments first.

</comment><comment><USER28> Posts that are either Ask/Show HN, or links to articles/tutorials of tools and services of personal usage - personal backup articles, a nice little desktop/mobile app, a new messaging service of note, or a new mobile or laptop that is trying to something new etc. Comments are where I look for interesting content on such posts.

I almost always avoid those yet another JS and JS/Native/web/blogging/static site framework articles. Android dev, my bread and butter, is rarely shared and discussed on HN and since I don't (usually) browse HN during work I would anyway be not interested in things related to my work (I try to compartmentalise it like that - leave work when I leave office). Most of the tech discussions here are of backend, dev ops, and web dev which don't really interest me. I also avoid discussions or articles which have low level implantation details.

I also avoid those _list_ articles - "best way(s) to….", "best/most X..", "Y is X…" etc. Or an article that sounds like a rant from the title unless it's by someone like DHH or the Pinboard founder or has a large number of comments. Or posts about something from my country or this side of the world.

I also look for one of those rare excellent non-tech article (preferably a long-read) - on policy, on history et cetera. And articles related to policy, privacy etc - comments are pretty informative on such posts, even though the posts are overwhelmingly US centric but that I think is just the website demographic. Actually I think I prefer non-tech articles.

</comment><comment><USER29> \- Technical things that have nothing to do with how amazing or bad Rust, Golang, or a new js fotm is. Hype distortion is bad.

\- Math stuff

\- Bug fixes and security things

\- Career related things

I try to avoid flamewar topics and articles that debate gender/race/politics/psychology for the 309838th time. They usually just make me angry, everyone has the same opinion coming out of it as they did going in and when I'm done reading I've learned nothing new. I wish they would be posted less.

</comment><comment><USER30> I find it amusing that my approach is almost the exact inverse of the OP.

\- If it has the word "quantum" in it, I almost always click it. I like things that are too technical for me. I really enjoy challenging scientific/ mathmatical articles, they are fascinating & humbling at the same time.

\- certainly click on very specific programming language links, especially languages that I don't use. I am curious, and try to expose myself to a wide range of languages.

\- won't read anything from certain domains, anything of questionable quality or click-baity/ tabloidy, eg. buzzfeed.com. Also, go on rants in comments about said questionable websites & how mad it makes me we are driving traffic & ad revenue to those jerks :p

\- will click on the latest iteration of "MLS tutorial for beginners". I AM the right audience, and am highly interested in the applications of training models.

Basically I use HN to learn about things I don't know. I try to expand my horizons, and glean any useful knowledge or information I can from people way smarter and experienced than me.

</comment><comment><USER31> Inversely correlated to number of comments.

Fluff article on bike shedding? 500 comments by know it all.

Technical deep dive into exciting new area? No comments.

</comment><comment><USER32> I rarely click on anything not on the front page from a domain I don't recognize. Even with all the noscript and ad blockers in the world there are too many baddies out there to justify the risk.

As far as the front page goes I lean toward titles that are about (in no particular order):

Infosec

Politics

Databases

Kernel / OS

News about major tech corps

I upvote stories that I want to see a discussion about or stories that I want to have a discussion about.

</comment><comment><USER33> I look for keywords regarding the tools I use and that describe myself. For me, it's C, C++, random Javascript libraries, databases, certain computer hardware, companies I use, and certain startup business terms. It can be a keyword soup that doesn't make sense and I'll still click on it.

I also click on words that appear to be made up, because I've been trained that I'll usually get to read about a cool new library, programming language, or programming tool.

In your example, "quantum" is too vague. Even though I've worked for years in quantum-whatever areas, I feel that the word "quantum" doesn't describe myself due to being too general, so it doesn't trigger my attention.

So basically, I just scan the front page for words that are attractive to me, never fully reading headlines until I've already decided I'll click on it.

</comment><comment><USER8> One predictive signal is submitter name, based on experience with their past submissions and HN comments.

</comment><comment><USER34> I tend to be a "comments first to see if the source may be interesting" type; this has some subtle effects on my heuristics.

1) I tend to avoid (the more obvious) clickbait. Useless information aside it usually spares me the inevitable thread about it being clickbait.

2) I tend to avoid political links. The source is usually politically bent, the comments are polarizing, and it's often unnecessarily toxic.

3) I tend to avoid failure/scandal articles. They are usually just people acting smug because it was obvious that reboxing pizzas at cost was not a sustainable business model. No substance.

4) I tend to enjoy reading technical articles on languages/tools that I use or aspire to use. They're often full of very interesting discussions. I especially like release candidates/patch notes as people often have uses for new features that I hadn't quite considered or groked which makes the value- add all the greater for me.

5) I like a lot of articles about potential futures; where we're going with DNA, with space, with physics, etc. These are things well at the periphery of my own knowledge but seeing passionate people talk about what the future could hold excites me for what I have to look forward to in my life.

6) Beyond those heuristics I also often do a lot of thread-collapsing when I see things start to devolve into zealous/crude mentality. That being said, I often do follow witty retorts and quips, so there's that.

7) I also check out a lot of new languages and tools, not particularly because I want to use them but because I want to know the kinds of problems they perceive with existing tools and how they went about determining solutions to them. It's fun to see some of them start to mature and turn into real things, though (like Rust, which I do explore).

As far as _actually clicking on the link_ goes, I usually click on anything that has a few decent comments (or, occasionally, very few comments) and will often read it if it seems highly interesting or opens well and is long-form.

</comment><comment><USER35> I always click on anything on the front page where I don't understand the headline. If it's good enough to get votes _and_ I don't know what it is, then it's likely to be a good opportunity for me to learn something new.

</comment><comment><USER36> If its anything I expect their will be fights and complains. Hell yeah inam clicking those l. For now my mind looks for

1\. Uber screwed up in a new way.

2\. How interview process sucks.

3\. Why this X language / framework sucks or we are leaving this.

<comment><USER26> Lol, I'm right there with you. I find arguing online to be really stressful, but a lot of the time I enjoy reading other people's online arguments. Drama voyeurism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I try not to click on nytimes, washingtonpost and all the corporate/state propaganda junk. And most importantly anything with a question for a headline ( except for Ask HN obviously).

Other than that, I'm open for anything CS/programming/tech/internet related topics.

I hate seeing so much anti-facebook, pro-vegan, climate change, etc obvious agenda pushing by organizations here. Though the mods do a good job of filtering much of it out, but it's obvious there are organizations dedicated to spamming HN to push their agenda.

</comment><comment><USER38> If it's trending on the front page and I have no idea what it's even remotely about, then I'm definitely clicking. Why else am I here if not to be exposed to things outside of my day to day?

</comment><comment><USER39> 1\. Will click on anything with the number of comments more than 100. 2\. Then will read the first couple of comments 3\. Then will decide whether to read the original article

</comment><comment><USER40> For the main page:

1) Anything which has high number of votes and moderate amount of comments is a good technical post.

2) Anything with high number of votes and more or less equal (or higher) amount of comments is a controversial post.

3) Anything with very high votes and a few comments is a very niche tech post I generally keep an eye on.

For everything else, I just keep an eye on my favurite topics: Emulation, Systems Level Programming, Gamedev

There are some posts which do not cross 100 Mark, but still seem to be gold. Trust your favourites

</comment><comment><USER41> Security vulnerability articles are often good. You get an in depth look at a piece of technology and problem solving related to it.

Announcements of company shutdowns can be interesting. The posts themselves tend not to be informative, but the comments can be quite insightful. There are almost always customers who chime in.

I'd fully ignore hype of the moment topics like cryptocurrencies or AI. Good articles on these subjects exist, but they are drowned out by noise.

</comment><comment><USER42> I love reading anything related to JavaScript(ideally React) and cryptocurrencies. I am probably the worst kind of techie in the eyes of quite a few people here.

</comment><comment><USER43> i think i used to have some inherent heuristics around avoiding content that i assumed would be a little too technical etc, but at some point i kinda dropped all preconceptions and decided to click on random stuff and exit within ~30 seconds if it seemed boring -- i think it's exposed me to a lot of content that has actually been super interesting that i'd otherwise have avoided for fear of not understanding much.

</comment><comment><USER44> I check the comments for any link which looks vaguely interesting. If the top few comments aren't slamming it, I take a closer look.

<comment><USER45> I'm pretty similar. I especially do this when the title has a click-baity title.

I will usually open a topic if it has a lot of comments, even if it's something I normally have no interest in. I've learned more than a few things from fellow Hackers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I thought I was mainly looking at two numbers: points and comments. However, after I've built a scatter plot of HN, I realized that's not enough. I still visit HN frequently to look for links with interesting keywords, or from specific domains.

But one thing is sure, I seldom look at the user, whether it's green or not.

</comment><comment><USER47> If the domain is a mainstream tech/political/general-interest/news organization, then I ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm a non-technical founder, so I click mostly on:

Accessibility-related articles (my field)

Education/edtech articles (my field)

Most Show HNs that I'm in the target demographic for

Political articles that have lots of upvotes or comments (though I won't always have the patience for diving into the comments)

Science videos or novelties that appear not to require background knowledge

</comment><comment><USER49> 1\. Major events and tech news. I don't read or listen to many news sites so it helps keep me up on the world.

2\. New programming languages, especially the hobbyist ones. I like to see what other people think is useful in a language.

3\. Mainstream psychology articles. I find stuff like biases and decision making fascinating.

</comment><comment><USER50> I almost never click on a link where the title is the same as the domain name, e.g., "The Story of Foo" where the link is "thestoryoffoo.com"

Such links seem to me to be usually publicity-seeking rather than information- providing.

</comment><comment><USER51> \- subjects that I know nothing about

\- subjects I work on daily

That covers everything so needless to say it can be quite addictive.

</comment><comment><USER52> Mostly I click on things that teach me something about programming, things that make me feel like my comment will add to the noise, or things that instinctively make me angry.

I avoid everything about startup entrepreneurship like the plague.

</comment><comment><USER53> I don't actually ever click on links from the homepage— I usually look at the comments first, then apply some heuristics like the types of discussions that are being had to see if I might like the article.

</comment><comment><USER54> I actively avoid anything to do with geopolitics/US politics/social justice wars/fads (cryptocurrency), and as a result, I find HN (still) useful and informative.

</comment><comment><USER55> If the title fits one line and I understand every single word from it and can guess what it is about I click. And believe me, it doesn't happen all the time

</comment><comment><USER56> Usually the comments will help me decide to click or skip.

</comment><comment><USER57> see the source code of: [https://hackurls.com/](https://hackurls.com/)

</comment><comment><USER58> Ask HN? Just click! I have almost always found some good advice in these threads.

</comment><comment><USER59> If it interests me. Oh, and I always click through to the comments first

</comment><comment><USER60> The science articles are usually pretty interesting. Also, it's a nice place to catch up on tech announcements from Google, Apple, Facebook etc. In fact I'd be happy if these were the vast majority of news items.

I tend to avoid links to NYTimes and other paywalled articles. Could be interesting material but usually all I see is "You have read 5/5 articles. Please subscribe or wait until next month."

</comment><comment><USER61> Follow your bliss.

</comment><comment><USER62> [dead], because it shows a very interesting bias of the "unbiased" moderators.

</comment><comment><USER63> If it contains the word "Rust" I automatically upvote

\- every HN reader, apparently

<comment><USER64> Please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

<comment><USER63> What was wrong with my comment? It's valid criticism of HN readers; it's perfectly substantive.

<comment><USER64> Cheap meta drama and overgeneralization is not substantive.

<comment><USER63> Sorry sir- I didn't mean to insult the Great State of YC. Hopefully my social credit won't go down too much. /s</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How (not) to compute harmonic numbers (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://fredrik-j.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-not-to-compute-harmonic-numbers.html

<comment><USER2> Speaking of the harmonic numbers, there is an interesting conjecture. Let H_n be the n'th harmonic number. Let s(n) by the sum of the positive divisors of n. For example s(6) = 1 + 2 + 3 + 6. Then it is conjectured that:

       s(n) <= H_n + exp(H_n) log(H_n)

with equality only in the case n = 1.

What is interesting about this conjecture is that it is true if and only if the Riemann Hypotheses is true! [1]

The Riemann Hypothesis is one of, if not the, most important unresolved issues in mathematics.

[1] [http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.NT/0008177/](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.NT/0008177/)</comment>


Ask HN: Who is this programmer making $200M per year? - <AUTHOR> I recently discovered h1bdata.info. Super cool. I was digging around looking at consulting companies that have a huge number of H1Bs and found an employee at Wipro who apparently makes $200M a year. He's listed as a "programmer analyst". The CEO of Wipro makes about $1.5M a year. What's going on here? You can see Wipro's H1B applications here and sort by salary: http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=WIPRO+LIMITED<p>The other interesting thing I noticed is that small town of Bentonville, AR is apparently a major hub for H1B IT workers. Lots of consulting companies list hundreds of people there. <comment><USER2> Probably a misprint. But it wouldn't be at all out of place for a senior programmer at Walmart's HQ to be making $200k a year.

</comment><comment><USER3> A high-frequency trading (HFT) programmer/analyst?

I've gotten a lot of spam from HFT recruiters, and one even went so far as to promise me $50M in compensation. I deleted the email, and blocked the recruiter from my LinkedIn profile.

</comment><comment><USER4> Bentonville = Wal-Mart.

</comment><comment><USER5> Typo. But there should be more programmers making 2M a year.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nitpick:

AK is Alaska

AR is Arkansas

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops, typo.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Coping with time anxiety while learning something new? - <AUTHOR> How do you cope with the feeling of time anxiety when you're learning something new?
I'm a college student who recently finished the semester and I'm trying to use my free time (internship was cancelled) to skill-up on a programming language I like (Python).
I'm working on a fun personal project in the language and every time I have to do something new, I encounter more and more in-depth information about the language and the ecosystem surrounding it. Small example: yesterday, I was looking at some Python repos on GitHub and noticed that all of the README files I saw were .rst files instead of Markdown, so I started learning about reStructuredText.
But when I first realized this was a markup language I was not yet familiar with, I felt this mix of dread and anxiety at having to learn something else in order to keep progressing with the project. Then, I realized I'd had a similar feeling when I was trying to implement a particular feature in my project and read through a pretty long piece of documentation to figure out how I could use the library in question to do so.
I generally enjoy learning new things about software, and want to be a programmer for at least part of my career, but I'm wondering if others have these kinds of feelings? I want to have a deep understanding of the things I do, but I also feel this weird pressure to just grok something "good enough" so I can move on to the next thing and keep building/learning new stuff. <comment><USER2> I feel this too, I would vouch for gaining in-depth expertise in a small area at least till a point you are recognized as a well known expert in your circles before switching to grokking mode. Gaining depth requires focused and sustained effort and is usually more rewarding than shallow breadth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Focusing in a small area is a good idea. I currently would like my area of expertise to be Python and the tools/frameworks related to it (e.g. Django).

Part of me has an unrealistic notion of what true expertise is, I think. Because I want to have expert-level knowledge in so many different technologies, but I know there's not enough time to do that.

I will figure out how to prioritize my learning so I can figure out what's worth the time and what else is simply grok-worthy. Thanks for your advice!</comment></comment>


McDonalds Creates Highest Calorie Menu Item Ever. - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10076819/McDonalds-creates-highest-calorie-menu-item-ever.html

<comment><USER2> For reference, the infamous KFC Double Down sandwich has only 540 calories.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Down_(sandwich)>

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this only in Japan?

Also, if British people refer to fries as "chips," what do they call chips? "Fries"?

<comment><USER4> Chips is the US are Crisps in the UK. "Potato Parties" seem to be a thing in Japan, where youths order huge amounts of chips(or fries): [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/mar/04/potato...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2013/mar/04/potato- parties-worst-kids-food-fad)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best sleep tracking device? - <AUTHOR> Context:
- Apple's bedtime isn't good enough. Need a better solution. - Must integrate with Apple HealthKit. - I travel a lot, so the ideal solution is compact.
- Optimizing for data accuracy 1st, data points 2nd. - Wearables like Oura ring are fine, but I prefer non-wearable. <comment><USER2> Disclosure: #FitbitEmployee but I don't speak for Fitbit.

Any Fitbit with heart rate will give you maximum acccuracy according to [https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-sleep-tracking- defini...](https://www.wareable.com/fitbit/fitbit-sleep-tracking-defining- feature-6496)

Heart rate is key to getting good sleep stages data, so a non-wearable won't do. [https://blog.fitbit.com/heart-rate-during-sleep- stages/](https://blog.fitbit.com/heart-rate-during-sleep-stages/)

To integrate with Apple HealthKit you need a 3rd party app.

</comment><comment><USER3> Out of curiosity: What makes it not good enough?

I use a Fitbit, and I really have no idea how good the data is: I'm asleep at the time it's being collected.

<comment><USER4> Apple's "Bedtime" isn't a sleep tracking app, really. It's more of a "convenient" way to set bedtime and waking alarms, so it's not a great comparison.

In answer to the OP, I actually used to use a Zeo headband EEG that I loved. Now I just use my Apple Watch, along with an app called AutoSleep. If you don't wear your watch to bed, it just keeps track of the time you aren't using your phone or watch, and assumes that's sleep time, which it records historically. If you do wear your watch to bed, it tracks your heart rate and movement as a proxy for sleep quality. The nice thing is that it doesn't require user intervention to start or stop, but it does require you throw your watch on a charger for fifteen minutes or a half an hour in the morning, and again in the evening, to ensure your watch is perpetually charged to make it through the day and the night.</comment></comment>


The utter futility of scratch card games online with the UK National Lottery - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2011/02/utter-futility-of-scratch-card-games.html

<comment><USER3> Pretty much the case in any online gambling game, as soon as you part with your money the server decides whether you've won, and then the game interface can decide how you find out.

For example, Roulette on paddypower.com:

      <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
      <!DOCTYPE GameResponse SYSTEM "http://www.orbisuk.com/igf/dtd/GameResponse.dtd">
      <GameResponse>
    	<Header>
    		<GameId id="1155" ver="1" channel="I" />
    		<Customer>
    			<Account balance="1525.00" held_funds="0.00" ccy_code="GBP" adjusted_free_balance="No" ccy_decimal_separator="." ccy_thousand_separator="," />
    		</Customer>
    	</Header>
    	<Close />
    	<Play stake="600.00" win="1200.00" id="0" >
    		<BetState drawn="15" total_bets="1">
    			<Bet name="Outside_Black" stake="600.00" winnings="1200.00" seln=""/>
    		</BetState>
    	</Play>
      </GameResponse>

As others have pointed out, it doesn't make it any less fair. It does mean you're wasting some time scratching to see numbers, or waiting for a roulette ball to land, or waiting for cards to be dealt... but that's a choice the user makes to make it more entertaining.

Personally, I love playing roulette/blackjack in a real (offline) casino - <USER2> i just walked to the front desk, handed over the amount of money I was willing to part with and asked them to randomly generate my winnings/losses, I wouldn't ever bother.

And the same applies for online - I'd be far more likely to play an online casino game as time-killing entertainment than as a way to make money.

<comment><USER4> I guess it depends what you mean by "waste." It doesn't seem like it's any more wasteful than the paper card.

<comment><USER3> You're wasting time in that the server could just as easily say "win" or "lose" rather than making you spend that time pretending to scratch numbers. It's no more wasteful than a paper scratch card, except that with the paper scratch card the waiting is a necessity, whereas online it is not.

That said, my use of the word "waste" is not meant to be negative - they've left that feature in the online version of scratch cards for a reason, because they feel people prefer to have that time wasted - and, as I said, if playing online roulette, I would rather waste time seeing a ball roll around than just being told if I had won or lost.

<comment><USER4> The paper card could just say "win" or "lose" too.

<comment><USER3> And those cards are available - but there will always be an element of time wasting due to the fact that paper cards _need_ to make you scratch away, whereas online versions do not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _In playing this Game, Players acknowledge that it is a game of chance, that the outcome of a Play in the Game is pre-determined by the Interactive System at the point of purchase, and that the winning of a Prize in the Game does not involve the exercise of any skill or judgement by a Player._

It does say this fairly clearly - although the author is correct in that by determining the outcome on the server side means that even if the game isn't completed, you can still be credited for the win.

There is even an option to bypass scratch card play and get the prize immediately ( _Reveal Instant Wins outcome automatically._ )

There isn't really much skill involved offline (compared to none online). That being said, I wonder how many people don't spot winning prizes when they buy a ticket in the store - if I find a ticket, I might check!

<comment><USER6> _In playing this Game, Players acknowledge that it is a game of chance, that the outcome of a Play in the Game is pre-determined by the Interactive System at the point of purchase, and that the winning of a Prize in the Game does not involve the exercise of any skill or judgement by a Player._

That part is almost certainly to comply with gambling licencing laws. There are different laws if it's a game of chance or luck. That's why many raffles (a game of chance) have a really simple question at the end, to turn it into a game of skill, legally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the same as any online gaming site.

I used to work for Victor Chandler [1] and there's basically a small number of companies who supply the games to all the different gaming sites. NetEnt [2] and Playtech [3] are the two which I can remember.

There are hundreds of games available, but they are all basically the same with different skins. The spike in traffic when a new game comes out always surprised me, people wanted to play the new SpiderMan game (or whatever) even though it's exactly the same as all the others, just with a different colour- scheme!

At the point where you start the game, the outcome is already determined, it's just a case of going through the motions until it informs the player. Whether that's scratching numbers off, watching a virtual horse-race etc...

It's heavily regulated though, much like fruit-machines/one-arm-bandits there is a percentage payout which needs to be satisfied, so it's no more a scam in that sense than buying physical scratch cards which they have to ensure a certain percent win each of the prize levels.

[1] - <http://www.victorchandler.com/>

[2] - <http://www.netent.com/>

[3] - <http://playtech.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> It was often said when the National Lottery was first introduced that it's a "tax on the stupid". It's easy to see how it preys on the poor, and I've seen this first hand. When you're poor life is mostly an unhappy slog from one highly precarious situation to the next, and an infinitesimally small chance of winning even modest amounts of money seems attractive because it would mean at least temporary respite from life under a low upper bound.

<comment><USER9> _...a "tax on the stupid". It's easy to see how it preys on the poor..._

This is a sentiment I hear often. Yet whenever one suggests that "stupid" might apply to more than just the lottery and might even be a cause of "poor", one is treated as an evil and unsympathetic person. It's a dichotomy I can't wrap my head around.

A question: do the poor actually live in a precarious situation in the UK? I was under the impression that the UK has extremely generous handouts which made working more or less optional for many people. (This is a genuine question, I don't know how the welfare state works in the UK beyond vague American stereotypes.)

<comment><USER8> I've seen life in a fair amount of detail in some of the poorest areas of cities in the north of England. In these areas life is very precarious indeed, crime and vandalism are a daily phenomena and educational opportunities are minimal. Looking at how kids in these areas are raised its very easy to see how they have a systematic disadvantage when they become adults and compete with the rest of society.

The idea of a "tax on the stupid" comes from the point of view of people living comfortably. If most of your basic needs are met then gambling money on the lottery seems like irrational behavior (throwing your money away when you only have a small income to begin with).

<comment><USER9> _If most of your basic needs are met then..._

From _delirium's comment, it sounds as the poor do have most/all of their basic needs met, though he doesn't address policing. Piecing together your comment and his, it sounds as if the only basic need the poor have which is not met is adequate police protection. Is this correct?

Your sentence ending in "comes from the point of view of people living comfortably" implies that from the point of view of someone else (presumably a person living in a crime-ridden neighborhood), the lottery is not irrational. Could you explain why, if that is indeed what you meant?

(Note: I actually do live in a crime-ridden neighborhood. But I'm also a 6'6" man who looks like he has nothing worth stealing, and I've only been the victim of a single, unsuccessful, attempt at robbery. So my point of view might be atypical.)

<comment><USER10> There are other things unmet: for example, support in career progression, clothing, etc. Again, this is fine for a short period (as it was designed for) but imagine living for a year on benefits, where there simply isn't any budget for new shoes, or any kind of enrichment opportunities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm always surprised people put up with the lottery given how it's easy to verify who is buying tickets. If you care about the poor why give them such an easy outlet for spending their money? If you care about morals why let people gamble so easily?

I routinely see people in my neighborhood spend more than I could imagine spending on any one food item in a month on lottery tickets. It's never the upper middle class people around here that do it but rather it's always the poor. The government even sells $20 cards just to let them part with their money faster and more efficiently.

I don't really have a problem with gambling but given how what I'm describing isn't really new analysis I wonder how those who claim to want to use government to help the poor allow this. It just seems like a naked grab for tax money on the part of the politicians.

<comment><USER12> I had a discussion with a colleague of mine recently regarding this exact point. It all comes down to hope and the chance to change things.

If for example, you have a steady job and you earn enough money to pay all your bills and save / spend an amount of money per month, then you will be content to the fact if you save for a few months you can afford that 'thing' you desire.

If however, you are technically poor or your job barely covers the cost of living, then you know that things will not change as they currently are and you will not be able to afford that 'thing' you desire however long you work.

In the second situation, the opportunity or hope that comes from gambling seems an adequate risk to achieve the money they want to buy the 'thing'. After all, occasionally their gamble will actually pay off and solve their problem temporarily.

Unfortunately, the downside / reality is that often is the case, the poor get poorer by wasting money on things like scratch cards.

<comment><USER9> Your threshold theory of utility is interesting. In mathematical terms, it suggests [1] poor people have a utility function which is flat up to some critical value (and this critical value is considerably higher than their possible expected income).

For example, U(I) = sqrt(I/$15k), i < $15k, U(I) = 1, $15k < I < $100k, and then U(I) = 2, $100k < I. (I is income. The discontinuity at $100k is not necessary, but the flatness on [$15k, $BIGNUM] is.)

I.e., consider a poor person making $15k/year. If they spend $100/year on lotto (assume 1 in 1 million chance of winning), with virtually no chance of success, that suggests that 1e6 x Utility(big 'thing') > Utility($100 worth of goods/services). In particular, this suggests that the poor person assigns a very low value to an extra $100 worth of goods and services. If this is the case, then the lottery is actually a very efficient tax! It only deprives people of something they barely care about at all.

If correct, this theory would also explain why poor in the US work so little - they don't value the things that the extra money could buy.

[1] Like PaulJoslin, I am implicitly assuming that lottery ticket buyers are rational and inferring their utility function from their choices. It's also possible that lotto buyers simply don't understand probability, in which case all this speculation is irrelevant.

<comment><USER13> I spend a tiny amount on lottery every week (almost minimum). The reasoning is like this:

      - If I never win, there is no practical loss (total spent sum too low)
      - If I win the jackpot, it's life changing
      - If I never play, life never changes (or at least there is not such a chance).
      - Most of the spent money goes to charity anyway

Why not play then? :)

<comment><USER14> Because the probability of winning is so overwhelmingly low that even though the total sum you spend is small, it's a net negative for almost anyone. If you have a rare disease and need $1M in a month to cure you and die otherwise, then it might be a good deal.

<comment><USER3> But if it's a net negative that you don't notice...

I never buy lottery tickets or scratch cards (though I love sports betting and casinos), however my father does buy a lottery ticket every week.

He's retired, and has enough money to live fine - he owns the flat he lives in, he has enough money to pay for his £100/month TV/internet package, to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, and to buy whatever food he fancies without thinking about what's cheaper to eat.

He has a choice of living like that and accepting that's how the rest of his life will remain, or spending a tiny amount each week and having a dream of becomming a millionaire. He's not an idiot, he knows the odds are against him, but his buying lottery tickets doesn't have any impact on his lifestyle, and it lets him imagine that one day he might win big.

He wouldn't notice any difference in his financial situation if he stopped buying the tickets, so really the only downside is that, if he keeps buying them over a twenty year period, the inheritance that comes to myself and my two siblings when he dies will be a bit less. But if you think that way, his quitting the lottery would make a far smaller difference than if he didn't subscribe to extremely expensive sports channels, if he didnt spend £40/week on cigarettes, and so on. I'd far rather see him enjoy his money than save it for my sake - I'll get by fine either way.

Sure, for some people the amount they spend on lottery tickets does take away from money they could spend on other stuff, but there are people who are well off enough to be able to afford the cost, without being so well off that winning the lottery isn't a dream they enjoy having.

<comment><USER10> And that's the point of it. But like any other similar thing, it can be an addiction, and when you consider choosing between the lottery or a meal this week, there's a problem needing addressing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I discovered this myself a year or so back when I had some money left in my lottery account from a small win. It soon became clear that 'wherever' you scratched would cause the same result and to test my theory, I scratched the 4 of the 5 panels off - then refreshed the game (which reset the grid, but loaded against the same unique game ID) and I scratched off a completely different set of 4 panels to reveal the same 4 numbers in the same order.

The laughable thing with this is that they have a whole array of games, which each require the user to do different meaningless activities, which serve no purpose other than waste time.

I guess the 'average Joe' may feel cheated, if they paid £1 and instantly got a message saying 'You lose' - with no form of 'entertainment' or interaction.

Either way, it appeared to me as quite a horrendous scam and scandalous for such a reputable company as Camelot. What would be interesting, is to know how many times it pays out the jackpot amount of that card (if ever).

<comment> adam-a From the National Lottery site:

      There is a 1 in 4.49 overall chance of winning a Prize on each Play of the Game. The Expected Prize Payout Percentage for this game is 64.08%.

They are required to publish the odds and they are correct. There is no scam.

<comment><USER12> The question of 'a scam' wasn't relevant to the chance of a win.

It was questioning how often it would pay out the jackpot of the challenge.

A pub fruit machine for instance has stamped on it, 'this machine will pay out 78% of all money taken' - that is the reality, it will return a proportion back in winnings and take 22% as profit. However, it does not disclose how this will be returned to the user or over what time frame.

In the scenario with these online scratch cards, if you play them for a while you will end up down on your money (as you would expect for a 1 in 4.49 chance) - but occasionally get a small win which regains a proportion of the money you have spent.

\- The question is, how often and what are the chances that if I play the game long enough I will win that advertised £100,000 prize? - That information afaik is not disclosed.

<comment> adam-a 1 in 2,880,000 for the top prize of £77,777, this is again clearly printed on the site. I still don't see how you can regard this as a scam, unless you want to classify all gambling as such.

<comment><USER15> For a given level of intelligence for a given person, it is possible to write a set of rules that make it appear that you have a reasonable chance of winning when in fact you don't. This is not a slam against the poor or the stupid, it is true across all levels of intelligence. The lotto gets a certain set of these people. Penny auctions step it up to the next level. Bernie Madoff caught another even higher level. (Yes, he committed fraud, but there was actually enough information for anybody paying close attention to figure it out with high confidence; his payout schedule was far too consistent, especially as the market started to drop yet his fund appeared to be immune.) No amount of intelligence will render you immune, though, there's always another layer of trick that would catch you, too, so let me emphasize again this isn't disguised elitism, everyone's vulnerable.

To the extent that the lottery appears to be disproportionately played by those who seem to be below the lottery's intelligence line, it is arguably a scam. And I do mean _arguably_ , not that I have a proof. But I would say that if your response is that people know what they are getting into, I would submit that A: no, they don't necessarily really _get_ it and B: would you be so blase if you were scammed by something a bit more sophisticated? It's easy to be unempathetic and be unable to imagine being fooled by the lottery's statistical games, but clearly it does in fact happen.

Is this proof of immorality or proof it should be shut down or anything else? No, I'm deliberately constraining myself to just the point above. Drawing it out further would take more logic and would itself be controversial. I just want to make the point that there is a plausible way to look at this situation and call it a scam without too much damage to the term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't that a "Schrödinger's cat" kind of situation? As long as you don't look into the box (or in this case, into the TCP packets) the fact that the outcome is predetermined or not doesn't make any difference. Anyway, disregarding that, these games are always futile statistically-wise.

<comment> adam-a Exactly, it doesn't make a difference to your chances whether the game picks your numbers before you scratch them or after. If they did it the way the author would like it would just mean server requests for every revealed square and session tracking etc in case of lost connections.

What's kind of interesting is games like Pachinko, which in real life rely on the random fall of steel balls over metal pins. A game like at <http://games.ladbrokes.com/en/games/arcade/pachinko> actually sends you the number of wins and losses when you place your bet, then you get to watch all the balls fall into their predetermined slots at the bottom of the board. You even get to pick the power of the shot for each ball so it's very deceptive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ironically, I noticed this about two years ago but concluded it wasn't actually a big deal. They are pretty clear that it's a game of chance - not a game of skill. And analogous to actual scratch cards.

<comment><USER18> It's almost analogous to actual scratch cards: while on actual scratch cards the printed numbers are given, online the order in which the ('printed') numbers appear is given.

<comment><USER17> Yes. In any case, it's not a big deal. If it was any other way, we all would have hacked it by now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As long as the server is playing it fair and sending over the expected amount of winners, I don't think there is a material difference.

<comment><USER18> It's actually pretty analogous to actual scratch cards, as mwg66 pointed out here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2174506>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm interested in how they handle failed communications - presumably they don't charge you if the page doesn't get sent to you?

Could you have a purpose built browser that receives the packets up to

 _<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' ?> <ticket> <outcome prizeTier="14" amount="0_

and buffers them all, possibly while returning a fail code, and then only returns the acknowledgements that the packets are received if that last figure is positive?

Presumably they handle this sort of thing, curious how they do it? Is it simply that if they can't send the page you still have to pay - could they then be successfully sued if your connection is down or theirs doesn't actually deliver the packets but you're still charged?

This last scenario would appear to fit into the sale of goods act in that you've paid for a service (a scratchcard game) but the game wasn't delivered ...

Curious.

Clearly if I was a black-hatter I'd just try it out ...

</comment><comment><USER21> This video sums up my attitude to the national lottery:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3JwS4RcYyk>

A tax on poor maths skills.

EDIT: To expand, there is a cognitive dissonance here: although this is still fair, you still have a chance at winning, we feel instinctively that playing the game is futile.

This raises deep questions of philosophy. What if this same thinking is applied to everyday life? If you believe that we live in a deterministic universe, then we are all just futile scratchcard junkies, forever diligently scratching the silver stuff off the face of the universe, innocent of our predetermined (and probably crappy) destinies... If you believe in determinism and don't want to kill yourself, you have nothing to say to scratchcard/online gamblers :)

And _don't get me started_ on Deal or No Deal.

</comment><comment><USER18> It would be utterly futile, if you'll _never_ see a winning scratch card.

However, the fact that the 'randomness' has already taken place when you receive your card (vs. happening while you scratch), makes no difference concerning your chances to win or loose.

<comment><USER22> It's an interesting psychological issue that comes up in AI sometimes. There's a certain cachet to something being "online", in the sense that it's literally generating something on the spot, even if it's with a fairly simple process. But consider this transformation: take a generative art piece, pre-generate 100 billion output instances, throw them in a big database, and then the online code is: randomly select a piece of art to show the viewer. No actual practical difference, as long as you've pre-sampled so many instances that the user could never reasonably see any repeats. The space of variation is the same; in terms of what you get out it's just as generative as before, just with a different choice on the typical algorithmic time/space, online/offline tradeoffs. But the rhetoric is a much harder sell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is this different from actual physical scratchcards? Are they even allowed to be games of skill? I thought the scratching was just a distraction to allow you to reveal whether you had a "lucky" ticket or not?

<comment><USER24> Nope – in the US at least, you don't even need to scratch the cards. Some stores have scanners that can tell whether the card is a winner or not and pay out if it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is generally true of offline scratch games, too. As soon as you purchase the ticket, the outcome is determined. There is no way for you to manipulate the ticket itself and turn a loss into a win.

If you can get information from the ticket, you might be able to identify which tickets are winners, but this won't turn a loser into a winner.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've read an article about the physical fruit machines doing a similar thing. The outcome of the "guess whether the next number will be bigger or smaller than current one" is pre-determined. The game knows how many positive guesses it allows and adjusts the numbers accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER27> It's like a movie: instead of sitting down for two hours in front of the screen, after buying your ticket the seller could just tell you what happens at the end. There, you just saved yourself two hours of time you could spend productively.

</comment><comment><USER28> I was under the impression that this is actually a legal requirement. That's why roulette fixed-odds betting terminals in bookies spin before you gamble.

</comment><comment><USER14> What's worse, these kind of things sometimes don't even generate the numbers randomly. They first generate the outcome they want (e.g. win $0.00), and then they generate the numbers that produce that outcome. They sometimes don't even generate the outcome randomly, but instead generate it in such a way that it's impossible for the site to lose money.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you break inertia in enterprise sales? - <AUTHOR>

If you are selling to enterprises, your biggest competition isn't other startups or incumbent vendors. It's inertia. Enterprise/SaaS salespeople find themselves in a constant battle against the target company's urge to do nothing. [1]<p>What has worked for you in the past to break this inertia? Can you share your experience?<p>[1] http://a16z.com/2014/05/30/selling-saas-products-dont-sell-themselves/ <comment><USER2> I've been involved in this for the last 3 years and what works for me is building Proof of Concepts.

Neo4j sells an empty database. What I do is take the problem the customer is trying to solve, find the boiled down essence of it, spend about a week building a solution to that problem, and have it ready to show off to upper management by Friday.

It brings the risk WAY DOWN to see that in such a short time I can solve the problem. They know that if they spend the next 3 months building the "real software" from what they learned from the POC, they will be successful.

It's the best job I've ever had. You get 1 day or so to learn "the business", another day to come up with model and create sample data, a day or 2 to write the queries that solve the problem and finally a day to show it all off.

At the end, all the customer cares about is that their problem is solved.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does this involve a sales person to manage relationship and an additional pre- sales person to do the POC? Is this done onsite & how does this affect your pricing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As someone in a large enterprise, I'll share some insights on purchasing decisions.

In addition to what's been shared, it's about the relationships and the fact that your solution serves the purpose of multiple stakeholders.

Even if your solution serves me well, if you can't justify to my boss and the other teams we're working with why your software is going to make us all kick ass, it's going to be a tough sell. We also get pitched tons of software every day and large companies throw tons of gifts so your product/message/delivery/service all need to be top class to cut through all the crap.

</comment><comment><USER4> Selling to enterprise isn't about product or features (or price). It's about selling a value that comes from process change. Communicate the value you bring.

And realize it takes time. Someone has to want to do this enough to get the wheels moving. So that means that either their job will get easier, their peoples job will get easier, they will save the company money, they will earn the company money, ultimately, they will get recognition and/or a bonus for bringing you in. It's rarely about the product.</comment>


IBM Adds Medical Images to Watson, Buying Merge Healthcare for $1B - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/ibm-adds-medical-images-to-watson-buying-merge-healthcare-for-1-billion/?ref=technology&_r=0

<comment><USER2> _a radiologist might examine thousands of patient images a day_

Shudder. As a young man, I used to inspect new cars for shipping damage. It was well known in the business that an inspector's effectiveness dropped off dramatically as the day progressed. Missed damage could cost our customer thousands of dollars, and yet even blatantly obvious stuff was missed from time to time. I once missed frame damage on a pickup truck that had been chained down a little too enthusiastically. The 45k truck was a write off.

Our inspections numbered in the "hundreds per day". I can't even begin to imagine the mental haze at the end of _thousands_.

I don't see Watson getting tired.

<comment><USER3> Stating it as "thousands of patient images a day" is misleading. It would be the same as saying you inspected "thousands of parts each day". As the radiologist further down notes, CT scans contains many slices.

While computers don't get tired, they also have a really hard time solving stuff like annotation tasks automatically. One thing is getting a good enough general performance, another is to never make critical errors. I see a huge potential for ML approaches in health care, but primarily as an aid for the health care professionals and not as a full replacement.

<comment><USER4> Maybe not right now, but there is nothing to say that it can't eventually surpass humans in effectiveness and critical error rate. 10-15 years ago people would have said "yeah self-driving cars are good, but as an aid for the driver, never as a full replacement".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just buying other companies is nice - but how about we start with APIs that don't 500-error every other request?

I <3 all their APIs for Watson but it feels like AWS 3.5 years ago. Reliability counts.

<comment><USER6> Is this a general comment or is there a specific service that you're having problems with? There are IBMers around here (for example, me) that really want to create a great platform. If it's a specific service that's causing problems, let me know and we'll figure out what's going on.

<comment><USER7> I'm not who you are replying to, but I am a developer at Merge who is excited to try out your toolkits! I think there are a ton of opportunities for medical image analysis in the PACS world. I really hope that IBM will challenge us with the task of integrating Watson-technology into the PACS workflow. We've got some really smart employees here and I am hopeful this represents a huge opportunity for us.

(Secretly I can't help but think the smart business decision is to "black box" the image analysis as much as possible, but I can't help but being giddy about it even so!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe I'm too cynical, but my first thought when reading this was, let's see how highly paid professionals react when technology is coming for _their_ jobs.

But of course, a few phone calls, the passing of some additional legislation if needed, and they will be completely protected from any financial ramifications. At least the world will still be a better place if this technology actually works.

<comment><USER9> Radiologist here. Not too worried about watson reading cat scans anytime soon. image segmentation is not a solved problem. Deep belief networks have been doing image classification, not segmentation. I welcome more competition in the radiology Pacs business though; which I think is all this is.

<comment><USER10> Ph.D student in medical imaging here.. It is not a question of if but when. I'm sure factory workers thought they would never be replaced by robots.

<comment><USER3> > It is not a question of if but when

You can say that about almost anything, and the world is still full of factory workers.

As a PhD student in medical imaging, you must also know that getting fully automating segmentation methods to work to the standard required in the clinic is really hard. And once you solve it for one clinic you will likely not be able to transfer the trained model to another clinic, because scan parameters, patients and workflow are different.

But when we solve the segmentation task, I think most radiologist will clap their hands and move on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is interesting. IBM positioning personal intelligence/expert system as service. Anybody else working in this space ?

<comment><USER12> Microsoft Azure has been expanding its analytics capabilities into this space but more for general Fortune 500 enterprise needs rather than specific verticals.

I can see the two giants on a collision course in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently had the privilege of meeting one of the engineers on the Watson project. From what he has shared, I believe that it will be challenging to replace radiologists with this technology. Sure, Watson can be trained to identify medical imagery, but that would be the only thing its training model would be capable of. I believe human radiologists will still be superior.

<comment><USER14> Huh. I don't have a source handy, but I recall hearing about field trials that showed Watson used as a diagnostic assistant was able to identify some hard to identify medical problems, where Watson's human counterparts were unable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What does it mean to "bring" medical images to Watson? Does Watson actually do anything, or is it a name for a bunch of services that IBM relies on other companies to construct?

</comment><comment><USER16> "I have detailed files on human anatomy." \- T-800

</comment><comment><USER17> 70s called. Expert systems are out of fashion.

Anyway, if you ever used Watson on their Blue-thing you know how horrible the experience can be. Just pay someone to make some documentation or something and an API..

<comment> j-pb Ah yes, let's not do something we can do now, because 40 years ago it sucked due to technical limitations.</comment></comment>


The Story Behind Google's New Favicon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/07/the-story-behind-googles-new-favicon/ <comment><USER2> I still like the old one better, it stood out and was easier to pick out in my tabs. This one just blends in and I skip over it. The YC favicon has a bold color which makes it easy to pick out.

Oh well this one is sleeker and more apple like, but not everything needs to be sleek, and whispy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fascinating. I can't wait to hear the inside scoop on how they code their img tags.

<comment><USER4> Good one! Pretty much same reaction as I had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It was a major failure to redo the icon. Change all the other property's icon, but leave the standard search engine icon alone.

To me, it smells like someone trying to keep their job. My brain instantly recognizes that icon. I skip back-and-forth to that icon hundreds of times a day. Now I'm left fumbling and angry at Google. Sure, I'll survive, but it'll be there at the edge of my brain for a while.

It's always the small things. We need a Steve Jobs like character at Google that gets how important design is. And that means not changing it for change's sake.

</comment><comment><USER6> I personally don't like purple for the color or the lower case..g - I think another color selection could have represented better things... is it just me?

<comment><USER7> Probably just you, since it's blue.

<comment><USER8> It definitely looks blue when it was blown up in the TC article, but in my browser tabs it looks purple to me too.

<comment><USER6> in my broswer - ff 2.0 - and with the white highlights it comes off a purple to me [damn that is why I never match]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What this really says to me is that Google has devolved quite far, from the days when they were happy to slap on any google-doodle on the front page. They are now happy to waste (I can only call it that) hundreds or maybe thousands of hours creating an icon.

<comment><USER10> A favicon is a pretty important part of an online company's brand/identity. I'm not surprised they thought carefully before deciding on what to change it to. Plus Google have a surplus of very intelligent people; it's not like they couldn't afford the time.

What surprises me is that I _really_ dislike the new favicon, personally.

<comment><USER11> I agree with your points.

I think what is wrong with it is that it is too twisty and curvy for something that is to be so small. A favicon should be bold, simple, clear. Like the Y on this site.

<comment><USER12> Y-Combinator and Facebook have the best i've seen. I'm really impressed with Facebook's--it manages to be stylish and simple at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The thumbnails of the others they were considering are telling...very iPhone- esque.

Google is moving to Apple, becoming a challenger rather than the usual innovator.</comment>


Google's is slowly making SEO agencies obsolete - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2019/12/13/why-google-s-algorithm-slowly-making-seo-agencies-obsolete <comment><USER2> Nonsense. There is general agreement on Hacker News than Google's search results are not very good.

</comment><comment><USER3> Paywalled</comment>


Rewarding Talent – Handbook on stock options for European entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> https://www.indexventures.com/rewardingtalent <comment><USER2> This overall seems like a very useful resource for EU-based founders.

That said, their suggestion of "Seriously consider back-loaded vesting schedules" is employee unfriendly ([https://www.indexventures.com/blog/rewarding-talent-quick- gu...](https://www.indexventures.com/blog/rewarding-talent-quick-guide), tip 5)

In particular the idea of a 10/20/30/40 vesting schedule is non-standard, except maybe at places like Amazon. IMHO, if you want to retain people longer, use additional refresh grants instead.

<comment><USER3> Interesting they comment on breaking the 100% rule at some stage - massive tax issues in the UK as then that's not normally a approved scheme.

Unless your in an EMI scheme which is only for companies smaller than < £30mill - which is the absolute Gold standard no income tax and only taxed at 10% - though the one I am in is rare in offering it to all employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, this calculator is very punchy is anyone else finding that?

</comment><comment><USER5> Is there one like this for the US?

<comment><USER6> Yes: [https://www.holloway.com/g/equity- compensation](https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation)</comment></comment>


The Trello Aquisition – The Missing Piece of the Puzzle - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/contributors/missing-piece-of-the-trello-aquisition/#.tnw_YtiD8MvD <comment><USER2> Interesting catch. I'm wondering how Jira was very successful in the early days without spending much on marketing / sales and without mojo :)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's an interesting analysis. Do you think the acquisition is finally going to pay off for Atlassian?</comment>


Apple Genius Bar caught ripping customer off ON CAMERA by CBC News - <AUTHOR> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns <comment><AUTHOR> This is especially pertinent in the context of recent discussions about Apple installing kill switches to lock out anyone else from repairing their equipment.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18144489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18144489)

This Reddit thread is also eye-opening!

[https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/9mlkha/apple_quotes...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/9mlkha/apple_quotes_customer_1200_to_fix_one_bent_pin_on/)</comment>


Suspected meteorite crashes into rice field in India - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/25/indian-farmers-shocked-as-suspected-meteorite-crashes-into-rice-field <comment><USER2> Krsna!</comment>


The Mariana Trench To Scale - <AUTHOR> http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=47264

<comment><USER2> And here's the depth of the ocean scaled to width (via Reddit): <http://i.imgur.com/1oLog.png>. Seems a bit shallow when you show it like that.

</comment><comment><USER3> Extended:

<http://i.imgur.com/Behcf.jpg>

</comment><comment><USER4> It was actually quite creepy scrolling down the page - especially as the blues switched from "there is clearly a little light here" to "black!".

<comment><USER5> That's actually an artistic effect. The black should properly start at 3280ft (1km) of depth. Below 200m only about 1% of light penetrates, below 1000m it's pitch black (darker than the darkest dark most humans have ever experienced in their lives).

<comment><USER6> I think you're underestimating the ubiquity of caves.

<comment><USER7> Or a darkroom. Or just a closed closet in a dark house on a moonless night. Black is black, it's hardly beyond most of our experience to be sightless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sure it scales, but completely vertically. Talk about an expensive server.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is kind of related but the National Geographic special "Drain the Ocean" is a great watch.

[http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/drain-the- ocea...](http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/drain-the- ocean-3639/Overview)

</comment><comment><USER10> "Sperm whales are believed to be able to reach 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) and remain submerged for 90 minutes." - that's a lot of darkness for an air breathing mammal to go through.

(quote from wikipedia)

<comment><USER7> Which is why toothed whales evolved echolocation.

On a related subject: why is the blue whale referenced on the chart? It's big, but doesn't dive particularly deeply. It eats krill, which themselves are tied to photosynthesizing plankton which are tied to the surface waters. There's no reason for it to be interested in diving beyond there.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps because it is the biggest? That is really the only explanation I can think of. Unless you wanted to show where the plankton feeders hunt to illustrate light penetration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oceans are the new undiscovered country. Star Trek IV was on to something.

</comment><comment><USER12> Call me crazy, but I read this as "The Marijuana Trench To Scale"

</comment><comment><USER13> The Seaquest DSV could take it.</comment>


Tesla's rival Rivian will help build Lincoln's first electric car - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-rival-rivian-will-make-platform-for-lincolns-ev-2020-1 <comment><AUTHOR> does this model work?

"The electric-vehicle startup Rivian will make the platform for Lincoln's first EV. That platform will include the vehicle's motors, suspension, and battery pack."

isn't these 3 (motor, suspension and battery pack) core competency of any EV?</comment>


Blockchain at Berkeley - <AUTHOR> https://blockchain.berkeley.edu/ <comment><USER2> There's a lot of pessimism in the comments here, and I feel like I'm the only one interested in where this will go. I can identify with what some of you are saying, but it is still interesting regardless. Distributed tech has some of the most fascinating projects right now. Here's a few examples:

Distributed file storage: Sia [1] and Storj [2] are both using blockchain tech to form a dropbox-like atmosphere where you can rent space for as little as 2c/GB. Renters can rent out their extra storage, while miners can mine and sell their units or use them on file storage to pay rent for their data.

Decentralized Content Platform: Steem-it. Very interesting concept here about compensating content creators with the currency that the platform surrounds. It bears somewhat of a resemblance to Reddit. [3]

Private yet fungible cryptocurrency: Monero (XMR) is a cryptocurrency on the rise that has privacy baked in, with the ability to opt-in to making your transaction public. It uses Ring Confidential Transactions [4] to mix the transactions and reduce the chances of the participants being identified to an almost 0 chance. It is ASIC resistant [5], has solid governance and dev team, and can even be used on hardware wallets like Tresor with a bit of hacking [6].

[1] - [https://www.sia.tech/whitepaper.pdf](https://www.sia.tech/whitepaper.pdf)

[2] - [https://storj.io/storj.pdf](https://storj.io/storj.pdf)

[3] - [https://steemit.com/steemit/@panenka/what-is-steemit-and- how...](https://steemit.com/steemit/@panenka/what-is-steemit-and-how-does-it- work)

[4] - [https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1098.pdf)

[5] - [https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/138](https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/138)

[6] - [https://forum.getmonero.org/4/academic-and- technical/2495/ex...](https://forum.getmonero.org/4/academic-and- technical/2495/experimental-trezor-firmware-testing)

Disclosure: There could be some bias, because I'm long on all of these except Storj, so I'm including sources that hopefully will allow you to make your own decision without me being preachy.

<comment><USER3> I like the concept of Sia but wouldn't the coin value be 1) loosely tied to Dropbox et al storage costs and 2) deflationary over time as storage costs are continually decreasing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think blockchain technologies have the potential to disrupt whole industries and I'm glad to see that students at world renowned universities are backing it up. There's a student group from MIT that works on something mysterious related to litecoin: [http://litecoin.mit.edu](http://litecoin.mit.edu)

<comment><USER5> Interestingly enough, it is launching when BIP148 activates for Bitcoin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 'Blockchain' is literally the least interesting part of cryptocurrencies and their applications. its a boring flat file structure that is an artifact of needing many clients independently deriving a shared ledger, nothing more and nothing less. the interesting part is how you can bootstrap issuance of a new asset by incentivizing participants to assist in maintaining a specified computer network in exchange for cryptographically-{verifiable|enforced} units.

<comment><USER7> My layman understanding is that blockchain is literally singly linked list, except of "nextNode" you have "parentNode" pointer (which actually checks that parent is valid for "parenting" :)

The important part is how blocks get added over network, and decentralized consensus of the addition. (Well, socioeconomic phenomenon of adding monetary value to all that jazz is pretty cool too!)

<comment><USER8> There's a bit more to it. Proof of work hashing and ledger consensus rules and difficulty targets and fee schedules and forks.

It's still all standard bachelor's degree algorithms, and I agree with the gp that it's not the interesting part. The interesting part is using these algorithms for social consensus on value.

<comment><USER9> I disagree those are essential. Federated chains like Elements Alpha are also considered block chains but lack many of those properties. I think it really is the case that a "block chain" is merely a singly linked list with hash linkages.

<comment><USER10> But that's just an hash chain, it has existed for longer than the blockchain. For example, all digital invoices in my country are hash-chained, to prevent the merchant from swapping one for another, and this standard was published before Bitcoin.

<comment><USER11> That sounds interesting. What is the standard called? I'd love to read more about it.

<comment><USER10> SAF-T: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAF-T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAF-T)

It's not that special, each invoice gets assigned as hash of (invoice number + total amount + date of emission + hash of previous invoice). Besides having to send that XML file to the IRS each month with all the issued invoices, the hash also gets printed on the invoice given to the client (paper or PDF), so it gets tricky to change the past without getting caught.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Honestly, it just looks like a group of students piggybacking on Berkeley's reputation to make some money doing blockchain consulting

<comment><USER13> Hi there, I am one of the executives of Blockchain at Berkeley. Happy to see we're getting some attention on here! I would love to clear some things up about what we do. :)

We're a student group (mostly undergraduate) that runs somewhat like a non- profit. We focus on all things related to cryptocurrency and decentralized tech (more simply put, blockchain - that's at least how the world sees it).

In the case of consulting, no one is actually pocketing money for themselves. While there is money involved, it is essentially a donation contract between us and our clients. Everything goes back towards the organization and the cause. We all work for free in that sense, and we reward the community with what we earn where we can.

What we do for consulting is mostly on the lines of Ethereum smart contract PoCs with front-ends. It's a lot of investment for a company to make their engineers go out and do this themselves, but not unreasonable for some students with a lot of motivation and decent programming knowledge to learn and build. We don't ask for much so companies are happy to work with the group of amazing students we have here to benefit the cause. ;)

Fundamentally, the whole thing is a learning experience for those who lead, those who consult, and even those who teach. Everyone who's a part of us at the end of the day is learning. We try to reach professional standards where we can - we love the personal development aspect that grew from so many people putting in their efforts to make the org a reality.

Blockchain at Berkeley does a few things beyond consulting - we run an undergraduate cryptocurrency course during the school year and post materials online (see blockchain.berkeley.edu/decal), we host events with well-known industry speakers and workshops for the public to join which can be found on Facebook, and we also teach executives about the technology in custom sessions. We're also working on an Ethereum Dapp course which will be offered Fall 2017 at UC Berkeley and will be recorded for the public with open sourced materials.

You could say we're just trying to demystify buzzwords for the world!

If you have questions or are interested in talking, you can ping me personally: firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER14> Does anyone in your group receive ether or tokens from your work with Ethereum?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tangential: is "blockchain" a Proper Noun? This page can't seem to decide.

I always thought this phenomenon came from journalists writing about blockchains not understanding that a blockchain is a data structuture and not a singular proper entity, but I give Berkeley more credit. So what's up?

<comment><USER15> Blockchain @ Berkeley is a student-led group, so maybe that's why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Many elite schools have groups of students building organizations. Wake Forest has an organization advised founders of Storj and Tilt, as well as alums working at firms like Microsoft.

[http://wakefintech.club/](http://wakefintech.club/) [https://articles.wakefintech.club/](https://articles.wakefintech.club/)

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand what this is. Is it a consulting company run by students? Is it normal to be able to use the name (and sub domain) of your school like this for a for-profit pursuit?

</comment><comment><USER18> This doesn't seem to open in Firefox on OSX for me. Anyone else facing an issue?

<comment><USER19> The site runs abysmally for me (Firefox/Win10). It's on the verge of crashing my browser.

<comment><USER20> Ditto for me. Chrome on MacBook Pro is grinding to a halt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How do I join the slack team?

</comment><comment><USER22> You guys should checkout the one they did on iota the blockchainless cryptocurrency using direct acylic graph</comment>


Why we started startuplab.co - <AUTHOR> http://startuplab.co/blog/2011/06/07/why-we-started-startuplabco/

<comment><USER2> I love seeing initiatives like this, especially in areas with traditionally little entrepreneurial support. The "Silicon Valley Experience" is interesting too. I wonder if this will be a popular program for them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that is the idea, to provide more support. The Silicon Valley Experience comes from a similar experience in NY. About 2 months ago 4 latin american entrepreneurs and I did a trip to NY(general assembly) to work from there for 3 weeks and we had a great time. Everyone loved the trip so much, and it was so valuable, that I decided to create an ongoing program, but this time to Silicon Valley.</comment></comment>


Programming for lawyers, the law for programmers - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to learn how to program and the easiest way for me to understand it is by comparing it to something I understand better. For me, that's the law.
Programmers often use a framework to make their job easier. Legislation is a type of framework and when you're drafting a contract (a program) you can sometimes opt-in to provisions contained into legislation. It makes your job a lot easier as a lawyer, but they will also need modification. This is a very general comparison but it holds true (imo).
Pushing code is similar to having your contract (program, remember) tested by a court.
variables, functions, all these things have their equivalent in the law, but somehow getting the hang of programming seems a lot harder.
Syntactical errors and typos are frowned upon in the law, but they happen all the time and they don't break the whole system
Sigh... <comment><USER2> I've found the law and programming to be quite different. In programming and engineering in general, you are often working towards one particular goal. The optimum is in the distance and you are on your path to achieving it. In the law, you are often weighing two opposing viewpoints and trying to find the best way to advance your particular view. Perhaps the closest analogy to a large program would be with international tax law, an area that is statute driven with many complex interactions.

For me, there was no shortcut. I first learned to program with Abelson and Sussman's book, SICP. Depending on your background, the mathematical bits may not be that useful and are easily skipped. From there, learning the languages du jour are quite trivial, the only exception being low level coding in C or assembly for which the C book by Kernighan and Ritchie and the first volume of Knuth's TAOCP are quite useful.

</comment><comment><USER3> _Pushing code is similar to having your contract (program, remember) tested by a court._

The computer _always_ runs the same code the exact same way. The courts can be damn near random on many issues.

Thinking of law like programming is a dangerous trap many techies fall into. Its a whole different mode of thought.

<comment><AUTHOR> True but browsers don't run code the same way

<comment><USER4> Different browsers don't run code the same way, that's part of implementation, but the same browser should run the same code the same way. It's nearly the definition of computation to be predictable.

Similar to law, that's like leaving something purposely ambiguous and letting the courts sort it out later and get more specific. But with computers, that's nearly impossible and wouldn't produce usable software You can't just write some code intended to run in the browser, and release it and expect the browser to do something sane, reasonable, desired, or even logical after the fact. The testing for intended results needs to happen _before_ the code is released and is "used".</comment></comment></comment>