The weekend before his death, our house was filled with people who worked up the courage to come say goodbye, he sat among them in the living room and took a few minutes in person with everyone as much as his state allowed. I sat on his bed as he was treated with euthanasia, which was one of the most intense experiences of my life. I still miss the man every day, but because of the process we had together, I have nothing but fond memories of the times he was still there, including the very hard periods of time that come with a disease like this.
This turned into a bit more text than I intended but my point is this: If you ever have a choice in the way you are to die, take heed of the points in this story. It may seem brutal at times to be as honest and open as you can about such an intimate process, but having gone through it once, I have absolutely no regrets. I wish Pieter and his loved ones all the best in the coming times.
I am saddened to see you are so young.
> ... and enforce the barbaric torture of decay and failure. It's especially relevant for cancer, which is a primary cause of death
I'm glad you find yourself somewhere enlightened. As someone who watched his father die of cancer over 2.5-3 years in the UK it almost robbed me of my father for a while. The last six months were brutal. He was either away with the fairies on Morphine, or in his increasingly rare lucid moments, pleading with NHS to reduce his dose. He chose pain and lucidity over a zombie state yet was often denied that choice as the system sought to reduce pain above all. He made it plain when he could, many times during the end months, that he didn't want to play this game any more.
Post death, our memories were of the brutality, of the incoherent husk on drugs who had had enough long since, of the ever increasing dosages and tripping in the system's wish to reduce pain, of the morphine smell. Of being increasingly worn down by it. It was harder in those early weeks after death to remember the real man, so defined by his mind, intelligence, humour and practical jokes. I still miss my best friend.
The UK is no nearer enlightenment on this topic today than 20 years ago when my father died. The views of those claiming a hotline to god, in our increasingly atheistic country, were exceptionally hard to hear, yet always sought in any media discussion of euthanasia.
I am thankful your children and other family will have the blessing of kinder memories.
Thank you for your words
Take care /u/PieterH.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Hintjens2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115208883. https://twitter.com/hintjens
> My first free software is from 1991. I realized the power of community gradually from 2005 when fighting software patents in Europe. I refined and tested the techniques in the ffii for projects like digistan. I saw the failure of money and power in amqp. In zeromq it took years to find the right patterns. I documented much in culture and empire.
This earned my respect beyond words:
> "There's this experimental cure people are talking about." This gets the ban hammer from me, and happily I only got a few of those. Even if there was a miracle cure, the cost and stress (to others) of seeking it is such a selfish and disproportionate act. With, as we know, lottery-style chances of success. We live, we die.
And this is just awesome: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11521249
"I'm sorry to hear this, Pieter. I don't have a question, but would just like to wish you well"
> Excellent question! (can you tell I'm bored in a hospital)?Well, it all started when I was about three, and I discovered ants. Fire ants, to be specific. Biting me all over cause I'd chosen to hide right on top of their nest. There's a lesson there.
Thanks, Pieter. For everything!
If you'd like to thank Pieter more directly, he's accepting Paypal donations at firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Well this is really kind. Yes, I'm pretty broke and have three young children who will be semi orphans. Cue violins.Happy to receive on PayPal at email@example.com. I will give my family the keys to that so they can put it aside for ma wee bairns... Thanks for suggesting this.
Thank you Pieter, and godspeed on your big journey, whereever it will take you.
I couldn't agree more about euthanasia, I've always envisioned a Dia de los Muertos style party for when I go :). I would much rather go when people have a chance to see me happy and reminiscing like you mention. I would say thank you for your work, but I know there's much more to you than that!
What a legend.
But it has huge implications for us in the very soon battle for understanding if turing-complete high-level-abstracting machines would experience "consciousness" like we do. In terms of medical care, rights, and other aspects for thinking entities.
And Pieter, if you are reading this, I wish you well in whatever lies ahead for your mind, and for your actions which will surely echo through the sands of time for people. Because like you said, even if life is indeed finite -- that we take a sensible approach, our legacy should be able to give us comfort that our actions do get magnified by time -- so do what you love, and it will speak through future generations.
Thanks for posting and thanks to Pieter for writing.
i) "One tactic I used was to take the cult techniques and reverse them"
ii) "We create culture by sharing" (extends to a successful project being a culture, a share-alike licence, and a name/domain which of course can be forked)
There are many others - his writing introduced me to Conway's law (was b) - "A software system mimics the structure of the organization that produces it ") - I've only read part of his work, time well spent and good to discuss with programmers and non-programmers - he made me think
Only thing I missed in your post is a snappy remark to alternative medicine (not expiremental, mind you); would have made it perfect. That stuff usually conflicts with the actual treatment and even if it doesn't and people survive they say it is because of the alternative junk instead of the actual treatment they conveniently forget to mention they took as well. You know, these sites that claim it's true and proven linking to multiple studies showing it...performed by themselves and published on their own website only.
I wish you the most with the time you have left but have no doubt you will make it count.
Well, one thing left.
This is Bob.
Bob is dying.
Bob doesn't whine or bitch about life being unfair.
Bob is one tough motherf*er.
Be like Bob.
P.s. If you think the stick figure sucks you should see my real drawings.
If I ever have to die of some horrible disease I want to go on my terms and do exactly like op.
His series of articles on psychopaths and the havoc they wreak is well worth reading, even if it takes a while to take it all in.
My best lesson I learned on programming from Pieter was to use code generators effectively. The advantages cannot be overstated.
Thank you Pieter, you will be missed.
A great write-up on his theory of model-driven development and the tech that underpinned most of iMatix:
Their website is a slide-show demonstrating their amazing work:
Generating servers from state machines and such:
SMT kernel for portable, multi-threaded, fast code:
Web server (old and new) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xitamihttp://xitami.wikidot.com/main:start
One of best middleware ever http://zeromq.org/
Death is coming to all of us. We all die. Death of some, however, will be a big loss. You, sir, are among them.
As the younger nephew, I didn't feel as much responsibility to be involved with the logistics (it felt more awkward to me but I think it was comforting to the children, spouses etc). So instead of joining in on the doctor/prognosis conversations and later the funeral arrangement/what to do with the house stuff, I just sat and talked to my uncles instead.
I had known both of them my entire life but I realized I knew almost nothing about them. All our interactions were just uncle to nephew, family occasions kind of stuff, but by this time I was an adult (just barely), and all the sudden we were just two people talking and I learned more about them in a 20 minute session than the prior 20+ years. Some other family who were on the periphery of the conversation confided later that they regretted not having those moments while they had the chance. I didn't even talk that much, just enough to make it a two way conversation, but I found my uncles both were very at peace but wanted to reminisce and tell stories they probably hadn't told anyone in decades. One uncle told me about joining the military during Korea and having gone through all the training and finally being sent all the way there to have the war end practically the day he got there and he ended up being sent right back and what a strange conflicted experience it was for him.
I've started visiting with my other elderly family a lot more since then and have had some similar conversations that didn't require anyone being terminally ill, but somehow that seems to make those conversations a little easier.
I can definitely agree with the piece, especially about what to say and what not to. I'm not expert by any means, I just did the only thing that felt natural whatsoever: just talk to them like a person and let what happens happen. Granted I had the benefit of the fact that they were well taken care of by their children and others, otherwise it would have been much more difficult.
May your wisdom and compassion live on in your children and in all the other people you have influenced.
We should care about these deadly diseases, or DNA mutation, what causing it. Any bug happens, we can resolve it, but losing a person we can't recover.
I am the one of person who also suffering from autoimmune disease.
Sorry for my English.
As for the euthanasia, my wife's aunt died of cervical cancer and it was very rough, not only on her, but on her entire family. It's not an exaggeration to say that they likely all have PTSD from the experience. I'm not a proponent of euthanasia but I can see the appeal. It probably depends a lot on the individual situation.
I'm not sure how long you'll keep on reading stuff, but rest assured me and many others will cherish the very fond memories of collaborating with you - you've always had a sharp wit and a practical sort of unconventionalism that gets things done. We have much to thank you for.
We worked together on Digistan and the "The Hague Declaration", which I helped host in The Hague - and I think it still is a strong statement that is worth repeating. People can sign that declaration:
I'm very much saddened to hear about your disease - and deep respect for the way you handle this unannounced change of plan. I hope your remaining time will be spent with those you love looking back on a rich life where you've left the world better than it is - and got the max out of it. I'll send you an email, so that when your kids are older and want to know about the things you've done they can contact me. Take care, my friend.
Reading what Pieter just wrote makes realize that I lack fortitude in one aspect: compassion. Pieter's words confirms to me that one needs to wield formidable muscles in the compassion department for one to be at peace and be ready to die.
Great man, Pieter.
Thank you for everything you've done as a blog writer and as a member of the open source community.
Thank you Pieter, you're truly a giver till the last drop, and a model to follow!
I think this is a great request: "Find a moment in your own jurisdiction, if it bans euthanasia, to lobby for the right to die in dignity."
Goodbye Pieter, go happy knowing that you've put in your kids much more than DNA, they're set for an awesome journey!
Then again, as you demonstrate, we need not focus on the things we cannot change. Spending time with regrets is time wasted. Thank you!
This approach is also fully compatible with the idea that life itself is a "terminal disease".
Apparently the cost finally dropped below $1kUSD this year
In my opinion, this is a great loss to the world of programming.
Euthanasia is bad from a practical standpoint, and an evil, because:
1. Objectively speaking, euthanasia is suicide, and the killing of an innocent person. If Schwartz killing himself (out of despair for his future, fear of suffering in prison, or otherwise) was a tragedy, why is Pieter's upcoming suicide not a tragedy? Is it because his certain death is closer? (This view promotes the idea that a "disabled" life, where one is "unhappy", or must be cared for at great expense, or is suffering, or (extrapolating) is cryogenically frozen, is not valuable in and of itself; but it is.)
2. Suicide increases the risk that friends and family will commit suicide. A search will yield numerous studies: "2.1-fold increased risk of committing suicide", etc. If you kill yourself, you are indirectly killing the people closest to you.
3. If you are against the death penalty because we might execute an innocent person, you should be against Euthanasia because we might kill a non-consenting person. This is already the case:
> "these laws and safeguards are regularly ignored and transgressed in all the jurisdictions ... about 900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent, and in one jurisdiction, almost 50% of cases of euthanasia are not reported ... some jurisdictions now extend the practice to newborns, children, and people with dementia. A terminal illness is no longer a prerequisite." 
Please, when you hear someone speak in flowery language about the dignity of choosing death, take a moment to evaluate what they are actually suggesting, and to research why people are opposed. Many seem to think that the only people against euthanasia are the religious whose reasoning is roughly "well, my religion randomly chose to mark this as evil, therefore it is", which is just not the case.
(...finally, this is likely a very poor protocol for dealing with death - people deal in different ways, and not all people will look back fondly on having to smile all the time, or on expressing "false" hope and being told that, actually, objectively speaking, they should not have hope. Also, a totally minor point, but we are not like Lego houses - we do not need to be utterly destroyed for others to live.)
I am stealing this.
I don't know this man, but I love him. I will remember this to my own demise.
I will look for a political group that is for a humane way of dying, and ask what needs to be done.
My father died in extreme pain. For three days he was in hell. His last words he spoke to me, "when will it end?". I didn't have an answer. My father's death kinda ruined my life. Even though we had our differences; every day since that day in January, 11 years ago, I think about how he suffered, and part of me died with him.
It's so pathetic that we as a society waste so much time and energy on non-essential stuff instead of curing major killers. Yes, cancer is a hard one to beat (each cancer being different, too), but we've done even more complex things as humanity. I really don't think curing major diseases has ever been a top priority of our society! I hope one day soon people finally realize that diseases are not what other people get (the arrogance of the healthy), but what we all will eventually!
The really unpleasant truth is that if we as a society began doing serious focused R&D on these life-threatening diseases earlier, the OP and many others wouldn't have to die.
But we didn't. Enjoy marketing your mobile apps until cancer suddenly makes you rot away.
So, what's up with the dates?
First, the article date:
> wrote on 22 Apr, 05:43 (4 hours ago)
Then later in the text:
> and on 25 April my oncologist confirmed it was cancer.
Seems like someone is a secret time traveler...?
In the context of this article, no, I don't have to wonder. He expresses very well why he doesn't want to entertain such longshots.
Here's a random idea that might have more potential: create an adblocker browser plugin that also colors URLs based on how slow they are expected to load, e.g., smoothly from blue to red. The scores could be centrally calculated for the top N URLs on the web (or perhaps, an estimate based on the top M domain names and other signals) and downloaded to the client (so no privacy issues). People will very quickly learn to associate red URLs with the feeling "ugh, this page is taking forever". So long as the metric was reasonably robust to gaming, websites would face a greater pressure to cut the bloat. And yet, it's still ultimately feedback determined by a user's revealed preferences, based on what they think is worth waiting how long for, rather than a developer's guess about what's reasonable.
Thirty-five times! Apollo software got us to the moon. Doom wasted millions of man-hours on a video game.
My point of course is that these comparisons are not actually that illuminating.
Are web pages much heavier than they need to be? Yes. This presentation very capably talks about that problem:
Does comparing web pages to Doom help understand or improve the situation? No, not any more than comparing Doom to Apollo memory size helps us understand the difference between a video game and a history-altering exploration.
I have taken a lot of inspiration from http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
Of course the size will differ depending on the site's purpose, but I feel like most web pages could stand to loose a lot of weight.
EDIT: I have a guide to setup a similar blog/site here
1) How do the numbers come out when you exclude images?
It's valid and good to know the total sizes, including images, but that can hide huge discrepancies in the experienced performance of a site.
For example, a page with 150KB of HTML/CSS/JS and a single 2.1MB hero image can feel very different from a page with 2MB of HTML/CSS/JS and a few 50KB images.
If we're just interested in total bandwidth consumption, then sure, total size is a good metric. If we're interested in how a user experiences the web, there's a lot of variability and nuance buried in that.
2) What device and methodology were used to take the measurements?
In this age of responsive design, CSS media queries, and infinite scrolling/deferred loading, it really matters how you measure and what you use to measure.
For example, if I load a page on my large retina screen and scroll to the bottom, many sites will send far more data than if I load them on my phone and don't scroll past the fold.
I only skimmed the article and didn't dig in to the references. These questions may be answered elsewhere.
Try visiting Apple's website for example. I can't see how you can have a small page weight if your page includes several images that are meant to look good on high quality screens. You're not going to convince marketing and page designers to go with imageless pages.
Doom's original resolution was 320x200 = 64K pixels in 8-bit colour mode. Even an Apple Watch has 92K pixels and 24-bit colour (three times more space per pixel) now, and a 15" MacBook display shows 5.2M pixels. The space used for high quality images on newer displays is order of magnitudes higher to what Doom hardware had to show.
Times change, and 20 years in tech is equivalent to several geological ages.
If anything, it cannot really be underestimated how some developers were able to craft such compelling gaming experiences, with the limited resources available at the time.
My personal favorite as "most impressive game for its size":
The Website Obesity Crisis
Heres the video of the talk if you prefer to hear him speak:https://vimeo.com/147806338
Every discussion about the web will continue to be a mess until we clarify what we're talking about.
Let's try rephrasing the title a couple times.
Rephrase 1: "The average size of a webapp is now the average size of a Doom install".
Response: Interesting, but not bad! Heck, some webapps are games. "The average size of a web game is now the average size of Doom" isn't a sentence that damns the web, it's a sentence that complements the web! (or would if it was true, and it might be for all I know)
Rephrase 2: "The average size of web document is now the average size of a Doom install".
Response: Well this sucks (or would if it was true -- still we don't know). Simple documents should be a few KB, not the size of a game.
Basically our terminology is shot to crap. Imagine if 19th century engineers used the same word for "hand crank" and "steam engine". "Hand crank prices are skyrocketing! What's causing this massive bloat!" Whelp, that could mean anything.
The best solution: web browsers should enforce a clear distinction between "web documents" and "web apps". These are two different things and should be treated separately. This won't happen though, which leaves us (the rest of the tech community) to explore other options . . .
1,000,000 * 10 / 2250 = 4444 web pages a month
4444 / 31 = 143 web pages a day at most on mobile.
While it is somehow acceptable, I don't see data plans getting cheaper yet the size of the average webpage is raising fast.
It doesn't seem like most websites have heavily invested in using HTML5 offline capabilities or actual mobile first design either, something easy to check with chrome dev tools.
Also let's talk about ads : Polygon.com a site I visit often , first article on the homepage with an Iphone 5 :
- with ads/trackers 1.5mb- without ads 623kb
More than half of the load is ad/tracking related. This isn't normal.
Oh, and you need a loop? \adds underscore.js\
Groove Basin  is an open source music player server. It has a sophisticated web-based client with the ability to retag, label, create playlists, stream, browse the library, chat with other users, upload new music, and import music by URL.
I just checked the payload size of a cold load, and it's 68 KB.
I'll just keep doing my thing over here.
and the video it refers to https://vimeo.com/147806338
I suggest that at the moment, we have basically two camps of website, with rough, fuzzy boundaries.
1. A place where someone sticks up an insight, or posts a wiki page, or whatever, to share some thought to others (if anyone actually cares). The blogs of many users of HN. Hacker News itself. Wikipedia. The Arch Linux Wiki. lwn.net. Etc. The sites are very roughly concerned with 'this is what I care about, if you do, great, this is useful to you'.
2. Commercial web sites that employ sophisticated means to try and enlarge market share and retain users. AB testing. 'Seamless' experiences which are aimed at getting more views, with user experience as an afterthought (a sort of evolutionary pressure, but not the only one).
Complaining that camp #2 exists is strange. It's a bit like lamenting the fact that chocolate bars aren't just chocolate bars, they have flashy wrappers, clever ingredients, optimized sugar ratio, crunchy bit and non crunchy bit, etc.
It works! A snickers bar is a global blockbuster, and 'Tesco chocolate bar' is the functional chocolate bar that just does the job, but will never attain that level of commercial success, it serves a different role.
My personal view:
Fundamentally what I want when we click a link from an aggregator, is an 'article.txt' with perhaps a relevant image or two. Something like http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ maybe.
But if a site actually does that, a website like The Guardian, I'd fire up wget, strip all the advertising, strip the fact it's even The Guardian, and read it like a book. If everyone does it then no-one makes any money, site dies.
So what we actually have is this constant DRM-style race to try and fight for our brains to get us to look at adverts. It's not about jQuery, it's about advertising, branding, 'self vs other' (the integrity of a company as a coherent thing), etc.
I don't know what the answer is here. I think this is why I find concepts like UBI so appealing - I find it kind of alarming that we seem doomed to infect more and more of the commons with commercialization because we haven't found a solution to keep each other alive otherwise.
I wonder how much of the problem is due to bloated templates.
Minifying JS and CSS, compression, CDNs and caching won't keep your browser from having to render all the stuff.
The stewardess on a new jet airliner:
- Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard of our new airplane. On the second deck you'll find a couple of bars and a restaurant. The golf course is on the third deck. You're also welcome to visit the swimming pool on the fourth deck. Now - ladies and gentlemen - please fasten your seatbelts. With all this sh*t we'll try to take off.
This video shows how we do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4LbUv5FsGQ
This document gives some results (like a GMail client that is 100X smaller): https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/d/1Kuw6_sMCKE7...
Wow. That's nice to see actually.
So indeed, there is a huge optimization opportunity of having a stricter error model.
Also, I'm really wondering how much battery could be saved when surfing such pages.
Also I'm sure there is a lot of potential going in the pre-parsed document model. But that's a next level kind of engineering I guess.
Doom isn't in true 3D, its an advanced raycasting engine. The levels are all 2D, there are no polygons, you can't look up and down. Doom has been ported to a TI Calculator. Lets maintain some perspective here.
It's actually better to show the user some progress bar, than the standard browser's "Waiting for yoursite.com".
You can get away with a lot without jQuery, while still having clean-ish code.
Locally I see so many companies building good looking but horrendously optimized websites for their clientele who don't know enough to ask for it.
The last company I worked at were building a local search engine and were displaying thumbnails whilst loading full size pictures which were hot linked from businesses websites. With an auto loading feature at the bottom of the page by the php backend, an initial 5-6 Mb page load could turn into 30+ Mb within a few seconds of scrolling. Add to this no gzipping and caching was not properly configured either.
I tried my best to get some changes going but the senior (and only other) dev wouldn't allow any modifications to the current system "for the moment". It was a bit frustrating to see so many easy fixes ignored.
Bundlers like Webpack already import JS in a modular structure. I'm wondering if we could do some profiling into popular npm module combinations (I know many people using React + Lodash + Redux Router, etc), bundle them up, and have Webpack load in those combos from a CDN via <script>?
Now this would probably require some work on webpack's end (the __webpack_require__(n) would have to be some sort of consistent hash), but at least everyone who blindly require('lodash') will see an improvement?
I kept looking for a "minimal" blogging platform, but they all had too much bloat/JS/etc. I guess minimal means different things to different people. I ended up just writing my own. The biggest post I have is 7.41 KB.
I used to be interested in front-end design, but since it's the industry standard to use $latest_framework, instead of tried and proven practices, I've given up on that idea.
Isn't that that the top websites have a lot more ressources available to improve asset management, cleanup and refactor?
Sure, if man hours were free, we could trim it all down to (my rough guess) about 1/10th the size. But at $100 or even $10 an hour its just not worth it. Pay the GBs to your carrier, spend $50 more on a better phone.
Also:You can't use average page weight when you are just looking at the top ten. That downturn could represent a single website; all others could be increasing in size.
As for why it's getting so insane, probably either:
1. Frameworks, since most people don't remove the code they're not using. For Bootstrap or Foundation, that can be a lot of extra code.
2. Content Management Systems, since stuff like WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, any forum or social network script, tend to add a lot of extra code (more so if you've added plugins).
3. The aforementioned tracking codes, ads, etc.
Everything is sales.
If cleaner, 'purer' sites made more money you bet the average web page would be 10kb.
It's all about what translates to more sales. As such, you won't ever see a return to more traditional websites. Look at Amazon with it's virtual dress models, heavy as hell, but they most certainly land more sales.
1) This is an irrelevant statistic.
2) Even if this were true it's not that big of a deal.
This is irrelevant because most people don't browse the average web page. They browse the top few sites on the internet and that's it. A more relevant statistic would be what have the sizes of the top 50 sites been over the last 15 years. I imagine they still may have grown on average, but download speeds have also grown over that time. Especially on mobile.
Even if we accept the premise that web sites as a whole, including the most popular ones are all growing and are now an average of 2.2MB each. Who cares? 2.2MB is nothing in 2016. Even on an LTE connection that's probably between 4 and 1.5 seconds to download the full page. And a lot of that size is probably in ads, which nobody minds if they load last or not at all.
Lastly, this is a self fixing problem. If a site is too bloated, users will stop going to it.
But I would propose that a lot of this increase in size is due to users (especially mobile) having higher and higher resolution displays, which necessitates higher resolution content, which of course is bigger.
It's not really surprising in a world where a graphical driver is > 100 MB (Nvidia driver for Windows).
"This new re-design gets us down to 0.4 Doom installs without sacrificing any of the visual elements."
Although I get really annoyed when I visit a blog post whose page is 100x larger than Dostoevsky's novels in .txt format. On my blog (https://pljns.com/blog/), JQuery and genericons are often my largest file transfers, but I still clock under 500kb.
The whole market is overvalued, not just the tech unicorns.
* Tick-tock is dead.
* 10 nm is severely delayed.
* EUV is severely delayed.
* Significant layoffs in R&D
* The ITRS roadmap is vaguer than it's ever been.
* Giant mergers are up (Intel+Altera, KLA+Lam, etc.), concentrating the industry more than ever.
* And ultimately: A 5-year-old PC still works just fine.
When I say this is the end of Moore's Law, I'm not trying to be dogmatic. Of course there will still be a semiconductor industry and of course there will still be amazing technological progress. But it seems the rate of that progress is slowing, and now the industry is adjusting.
My friend's story gave me the impression of Intel being a highly dysfunctional company. My friend was sad to leave Intel, but I think it was good for him in the long run.
For those about to be laid off from Intel, I hope it also works out for you.
> Shares of Intel were halted after the bell Tuesday as Intel announced it would cut 12,000 jobs, or 11 percent of its workforce
> The technology company also said the CFO would step down
So I'm assuming their inability to find 'talent' is no longer an issue? Same as Microsoft, IBM, and the numerous other big corps that have had massive layoffs recently, while also claiming an inability to find enough US tech workers?
The Windows ecosystem has become corrosive to any industry or company it touches. We now see the end results of supporting a closed-source legacy platform is 12,000 jobs at Intel due to the lack of excitement and innovation in the PC space. Perhaps Linux will revive the PC market but in the meantime Intel and their peers at nVidia/AMD have done little to make that a reality in the mainstream sense.
Now, not so much. I can put a SSD and more RAM in my eight-year-old laptop and make it work just about as well as a new one.
I can switch off the old HP DL380/G5 boxes in my colo, hand them over to the steel recycling guy, move the data to some cloud service, and come out ahead electricity bill vs. cloud bill. I'm not buying many processor chips anymore. Neither is anybody else, except maybe the cloud services. And their bargaining power makes Dell and HP look like the guys in the white-box computer shop down the street.
The processor chip rocket ship has entered orbit; its occupants are now in microgravity. Some other rocket ship will be the next big ride.
It's too bad those folks are out of work. It's too bad plutocrats always behave as if les bontemps rouleront toujours.
It seems skylake is doing really well.
Is it mostly electrical engineers working on the processors or sales and marketing people ?
Oh, the horror.
- Also cuts full year margin guidance, sees 62% down from 63% before
- Generated $4 BN in cash from operations, of which it spent $1.2 BN on dividends, $793MM for buybacks and saved the rest for severance
- Notable difference in GAAP vs non-GAAP: GAAP Net Income: $2.046BN (missing expectations), non-GAAP Net Income: $2.629BN
I'd always love to talk to Intel people from the hardware security projects (SGX, etc.).
Where have I heard this before? I think in a little book called the "Innovator's Dilemma". Can anyone predict what happens next?
I wonder if Intel will try to push Atom into "Core i3" and make single-core Core i7's next to "increase profitability". They've already started making dual-core Core i7s - I mean how ridiculous is that idea?! Isn't a dual core Core i7 supposed to be a Core i5? Do their brands still mean anything anymore?
Intel really missed out on mobile and with PC sales rapidly declining it looks like they are going to refocus on enterprise and data centers. ARM and NVIDIA/GPU computing are also expanding rapidly in those areas and that will pose a major threat to Intel.
Couldn't they have predicted this sooner?
Increasingly the footprint of hardware is becoming sparser, replaced by software, etc.
It is time to make the push to make hardware open source mainstream from the point power hops on to where software picks up.
There are many, many really good reasons to do this, but in the end, to me, it will define how free the world is.
These arguments always remind me of people claiming that certain professions are not paid enough. They forget that there is a market for labor and in this case the labor is finding vulnerabilities. People will either be willing to work for the posted price or not. In the case of pen testing facebook I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people out there looking for bugs who aren't even really concerned with what the final payout is going to be.
Yeah, they could have gotten completely owned if he didn't report this. But to him reporting it and getting 10k in compensation was sufficient. Why would facebook pay him a million if he was willing to take 10k?
Part that jumped out at me, aside from obvious goodies, was this:
"FTA is a product which enables secure file transfer, online file sharing and syncing, as well as integration with Single Sign-on mechanisms including AD, LDAP and Kerberos"
"...web-based user interfaces were mainly composted of Perl & PHP... PHP source codes were encrypted by IonCube... lots of Perl Daemons in the background"
Wow. That inspires a lot of confidence in the "secure" product. I'd have doubted Facebook relied on such a system had I not known they built their empire on PHP. We all know its reputation. Their "secure, file-transfer appliance" fits right in.
Shameless plug but if you like that kind of articles I suggest signing to my newsletter: http://bugbountyweekly.com. A free, onceweekly e-mail round-up of news and articles about Bug Bounty.
Looking at how egregious their security mistakes are they dont appear to take security seriously.
This is the same company that (last I was down there) had a billboard on 101 that says "Secure".
Many echos of oracles "unbreakable" ad campaign while being an aggressively bad at security company
How does setting up a shell and collecting credentials and then downloading them later give you a pat on the back?
Is this some kind of a joke?
(Moderators: Could you remove the #dropdown part from the URL please?)
Edit: The two post seem to have been merged by the moderators. Thanks!
PS: for the sake of sharing http://bootswatch.com/
Let me know if I should update to Bootstrap 4 and continue development. Feedback is welcome!
The url is kind of hard to remember.
I really want the flexbox support.
Many of the "API" changes in Bootstrap 4 are subtle class name differences, like using pull-<size>-right vs pull-right. I think your interactive examples are a lot more helpful for seeing this quickly vs. the official docs (and the official docs are pretty good too).
A nice idea and execution. Bookmarked!
Does versions of Bootstrap 2 and 3 exists or are planned?
I think Bootstrap 4's documentation is even harder to navigate than Bootstrap 3's. It's very frustrating, but this cheat sheet will help a lot.
links from each section to the official docs on that element would be awfully nice.
I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the facts of the story one year later. A news story gets twisted to promote some narrative that will sell papers, and when the facts of the story are finally verified (usually not by the news themselves, but lawyers or courts or whoever), the story is dropped and never reported on again.
Again, if the only thing a reporter had to do was read the report to find the facts of the case to verify what is and isn't true, what the fuck is even the point of a news agency?
Good for Motherboard to wait and check. Unfortunately this means we will see this article now in all the outlets that published the previous one with a hand-washing disclaimer ("remember that article SOMEONE ELSE wrote that we talked you about last week, well...")
>So while Apple is nominally responsible for recycling a 90 million pounds of e-waste, very little of that is actually iPhones, and very little of that is actually being done by Apple. In Washington State, for example, Apple products made up just 1.78 percent of the total weight of e-waste recycled in 2014. In Oregon, Apple products made up 1.65 percent.
The author wants to argue that "very little of that is actually iPhones, and very little of that is actually being done by Apple" but the example he uses for that doesn't really show "very little", but rather a huge percentage of recycled e-waste being Apple stuff.
While the statement that "very little of that [apple products recycling] is actually being done by Apple" is compatible with the example, the example doesn't really prove that "very little of that is actually iPhones" as it's supposed to.
And even the implication that the numbers are small doesn't follow -- 1.65 to 1.8 percent of the total e-waste in a state is nothing to sneer at, considering Apple is just one among tens of thousands of companies making electronics, and compared to things like TVs and such, theirs are tiny and weight little (a fact admitted elsewhere in the article).
It's like they're trying to make it hard to compare things numerically on purpose, so you have to read and believe the conclusion in their verbal narrative.
> Gold 2204 [lbs] 
So is the Vice story trying to claim that "take back initiatives" aren't run by Apple? This
Stupid, stupid, stupid and naive :)
Various media sites claimed apple recycled $40 million worth of gold from iphones, they were dead wrong.
What actually happened is that Apple is under statutury obligation to recycle a certain weight of e-waste depending on it market share or weight of electronics sold (depending on state laws). The e-waste doesn't have to be of the manufacturers own products.
Apple paid third party recyclers to recycle mostly CRT's and PC's (iphone have hardly any gold and are much more valuable refurbished, In fact, phones and tablets often dont count toward the overall recycling requirements in many state laws.) and probably incured a loss rather than a 40 million windfall as claimed in news articles.
Original Article: 1500 words (~8 minute read)Summary: 114 words (less than a minute)
The articles goes in to some more detail and analyzes the mandatory recycling laws deeper as well. There is also some commentary of how many other sites got it very wrong and overview of the e-waste recycling industry. Reading recomended if you want gain more knowledge on this.
If you'd like such summaries for all articles before you read them check out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11535695
How can these places claim "freedom of the press" without having to prove they are "press" or what "press" even is?
The idea that all will be hired or none will be hired is kinda odd as well. You are ceeding your career to bunch of other people in a non-entrepreneurial way. You are doing more work, giving more to Stripe than you are getting back. You are lowering their risk and not being compensated for that. Neither as a team nor as individuals.
It'd be interesting if you could collaborate and bid for your salaries as a group and/or make sure everyone got at least a minimum. It would be a failure if everyone in the group got the same amount.
The collective bargaining that would go on would be force multiplied in either direction. Either people wouldn't negotiate and companies like Stripe would get a great bargain of a team that already works together or they would get reamed as the team realizes that together they are more valuable than what they could bargain for individually.
Lastly, it's probably a risky move in that if a group leaves one company together successfully, they are more likely to move on from the second company together as well. If they are all working on the same project, you could have a disastrous and instantaneous brain-drain.
It's like building in a massive artificial bus factor into your company.
If people took an adversarial or merely valued their small in-group more than the company, they could get hired as a group, build an important system for Stripe and then en-masse, quit to create a consultancy and have Stripe as their first (reluctant) customer because they have knowledge of an important subsystem. In fact, this would be an excellent way to launch a consultancy.
Stripe, you may have opened a can of worms with this move. Teams hopping from startup to startup like individual employees do now would make startups even more chaotic.
Maybe they are banking on the downturn and think they can get high quality teams on the cheap. Seems like a way to open the business to alot of risk.
Personally I can feel this "flow", and I have some favorite pair programming friends; it's hard to beat the feeling of having someone else that completes your sentences or writes down in code the idea that you were thinking out after just saying a couple of words or exchanging a single glance. The probability of this happening on a new workplace with people that you don't know doesn't seem so high to me, so this idea really makes sense.
Has any other company thought of this before?
Long term I'd love to see stats on this. My intuition is you'd wind up more successful, similar to how referrals make better employees. There does seem like some risk though - the team will likely succeed or fail as a group.
That's why I am genuinely curious what they plan to do once they hire teams. Let's say you hire a team of a designer and a developer. It's not like they will be always working together and with no one else in the company. Chances are you won't be working as the tag team forever. That would be stupid both for the company and for these people because you are being too closed minded and won't learn much by only interacting with the other person when there are so many other talented people in the company. I presume that isn't what they plan to do. Then that leaves us with the option of just hiring them "as a team" but once they're in, there's no guarantee that they will work as the same team, just like how most acquisitions work--when they acquire a company they say stuff like "Company A's expertise will be helpful in us developing our such and such core features", but after the acquisition they all disperse and get assigned to different teams after a while.
So... what's the point? Well that's why I think it's a gimmicky way to attract attention and get more people to apply. Any counter argument?
When you bring new people to a company, they tend to work the way they use to in their previous occupation. More often than not, a new employee will start his sentences with "What we used to do in this situation" or "that's why we did it that way at X", trying to both build up on his past experience, and to find an anchor of familiarity in an unfamiliar environment.
This is normal phase and usually wears off after a few weeks/months. But for as long as it lasts, this behavior can be annoying for your current employees as they have built up their own thing, and they don't necessarily want to be reminded that there were other options that they didn't follow.
The risk that you take when bringing a team of 3 to 5 people is that they go in their own corner, dismiss all the tools that already exist, recreate the work environment they are used to, don't mix well at all with other employees, etc.
And what you get from people being used to work together, you loose in management pain. I think the usual way of hiring one person, who then can refer to the good guys in his previous team is a much sounder approach, as it lets time for the culture to adapt.
So the likelihood of all members of a given set of X people being employed is almost zero.
What happens to the team dynamic when the employer wants to employ Jenny and Steve but not Bill, Mike and Vivek?
This might sound good but it aint going to work.
The downside to this will be the negotiated rate, and that is the upside for Stripe.... along with the lower risk hiring outcome they also receive.
When time is not on your side your negotiating ability is severely hampered.
There will always be an imperative for someone in a team to "hurry the paperwork" along faster than someone else because they need the financial security of a job etc etc. So unless the "team" is happy to delegate the entire negotiating process to one person with complete authority this situation will be unavoidable. And let's face it, not many people will blindly put their faith in someone else to negotiate every aspect of their next full time permanent position, including whether or not to accept it and give notice at their current employer.
Money isn't everything of course, but this is a sure-fire approach to limiting your income, thus don't think there will be many takers.
As someone else said in the comments here, the more practical alternative that actually does work is called consulting.
How is salary negotiated? What happens over time - do you just become discrete employees? What about internal promotion - does it just not happen?
I would find it incredibly difficult to get together with friends and decide 'right, i guess we're all worth X each then, let's go for that'.
I think this concept might attract fresh grads more and could be integrated into a BYOT internship program.
There are probably many people who want to work with their friends, especially when they did OSS stuff together.
On the other hand, I have different opinions than other people about when to leave a company, so I'm mostly on my own, even if I have worked with many good people who I'd love to take with me, haha.
Cons for stripe: risk of the team bringing not only their previous company culture, but also their group micro culture. Risk of all of them leaving Stripe all at once (they did it once).
Pros for the new team: I can't think of any, I've never been in a group where I thought everybody was great (and beside I see meeting new people as a perk of changing job).
>the industry has always focused on hiring atoms; wed like to try hiring molecules.
Been thinking about "crew hiring" as I've roughly termed it, cohorts of flexible, ad-hoc, a-gamers who like to move around, groove on idea and commit when it feels solid, interesting and a great fit for them.
Taking this further, we see companies becoming an "atelier/studio methodology of multiple "teams" working within a collective space for a unified aim..
We can all easily see how this could degenerate as well as succeed.
It's a super fascinating idea, and I am genuinely fascinated to see what plays out. I have yet to bet against Stripe.
It's basically trying to cheaply scale the concept behind acquihires.
We are starting SVOPs (Silicon Valley ops) - we have built some shit... But mostly we just wanted to start a consortium. Join us if you'd like...
SVOPs.slack.com - we are all actively looking for people or help - or even jokes or learning or what not...
Silicon Valley needs much more community (not in the Facebook kind, but in the "hey lets play DnD and drink and talk shit and be like OMG I heard about that and dos you know also....") kind...
We have a culture - it's not evenly distributed but it's here and it drives a lot of shit...
Come join. Where you are physically located doesn't matter: Sam@sstave.com
I love that they picked this day to make an announcement.
For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Simply revoke the current criminal laws. The bill would be passed quite quickly. Which would then buy time to figure out a bill for legalization.
Why is this important? Despite popular belief, simple possession laws ARE upheld in Canada, but the people charged are disproportionately minorities and poor/homeless people. IIRC, there were 40 000+ criminal charges for simple possession last year in Canada. That means thousands of citizens who are now burdened with a criminal record, making job searches difficult and border crossings into the US.
So while laws for legalizing pot are getting figured out in Parliament, more people keep getting locked up for simple possession.
You have to be genuinely, deeply sick in Australia to be allowed to puff a joint. It's like living in the 1950's. So strange that Australia follows the world so quickly towards becoming more conservative and is so incredibly slow to become less conservative, even when our cultural leader, the U.S.A. is headed that way.
Decriminalization is of little use to the chronically uncool.
How do they get out of this? I've read that this is a big holdup in US federal drug law reform.
If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.org and give us reason to believe that you'll only post civil, substantive comments in the future.
I've been to Vancouver and it wasn't a very pretty sight.
The amount of homelessness and crime is 10 times more what I've seen anywhere else in North America.
There's an entire section (several blocks) in the Downtown area that's full of homeless people and the streets smell like urine.
Shops even in areas far away from downtown put posters on their windows saying they don't hold cash overnight. i.e. please thieves don't break in at night because you will not find any cash.
At the same time, Marijuana seemed like it was very easy to obtain, and for free too! There plenty of shops that give it away for free "for medical purposes". Some of them even advertise that they have a doctor who will prescribe it for you in case you don't already have a prescription!
I know correlation is not necessarily causation but easy access to Marijuana was the only significant difference between Vancouver and all the other cities I've visited in North America.
In Australia the full price for a product has to be displayed equally or more prominently than any other price. So that $6.93 has to be just as visible other pricing claims (like $0.99 for 4 weeks).
The same law also requires companies to include tax prominently in their pricing. More generally, a business cannot engage in misleading or deceptive conduct.
The rationale behind this is it makes things fair for consumers, and helps businesses compete fairly.
These laws probably don't exist in places like the US as businesses complain about compliance costs, and the governments have other priorities.
After raising the flag too many times without being heard, I finally quit. But is there a more scalable way to protest / stop this?
What about a browser extension that warns when you try to sign up for a service that you can only cancel by phone?
As for the content of the article, it has always seemed anti-user to me for a website to prompt for a subscription 30 seconds into browsing a page. I wonder if anyone has actually investigated the effect it has on traffic properly, because I always go back whenever I get prompted to subscribe.
If someone had told me in 2005 that in the future, intrusive popups would work its way back into the domains of acceptable design to the point where people will gladly have them on their personal blogs I would have laughed in disbelief. Together with "You have an outdated browser" ("Please view this in Netscape 4.0"), "Rotate your device" ("Best viewed in 800x600") this is all a terrible setback in acceptable practices.
Add to that some more recent design patterns like a "share on <social media>" button taking up 1/5 of the screen estate following you through the page only for the benefit of the publisher and the handful of users that also actively use twitter, weird overloading of scrolling behavior, "Continue reading" buttons... It's an awful mess and especially for websites that ideally would just present plain written text with some pictures it seems like designers are over-engineering their solutions for goals that in no way aligned with those of the users.
Publishing is in a very uncomfortable place right now - at the bottom of this comment I've attached a 2014 report from Adobe which, TL;DR, says that most people are unwilling to pay for content online and also unwilling to see ads online. This sort of behavior is forcing publishers to squeeze revenue of any stone they can find.
I understand that this may not be a popular opinion here, but content doesn't create itself, people do, and people need to make a living. Maybe before we all start admonishing the Boston Globe (founded in 1872, btw) for making a close button on a modal perhaps a tick too light, we should consider why these practices are becoming more and more common place.
It's disgusting and way too many companies are utilizing these tactics rather than building a solid business model.
More companies that are doing this should be called out. Ive seen naturebox, justfab and others just to name a few.
I can see why they are focusing on finding subscribers who think they are only paying a fraction of that.
It looks like some of the Globe's practices are toeing the line. They probably have a bunch of lawyers making sure they aren't crossing the line and are obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Newspapers really have missed a trick or two in the transition to the internet.
When I was in my first year Econ 101 class I remember the professor telling a story which IIRC was about SF Bus Companies. We were talking about price elasticity and general market pricing mechanisms and doing price curves. The story was essentially that the bus company brought in consultants who evaluated why the company was losing money after it had raised rates. It was a no-brainer of course, that if you sell 5,000 rides a day (made up number) that if you raised prices from 1.00 to 1.10 you would make 10% more.
It turned out, that the company was doing rather poorly after raising rates but critically, they were even priced too high at 1.00. 20,000 people would ride the bus for $0.75 and have less impact on the marginal price as the busses were heavily underused.
The point is that it is possible, I would say likely but I have no data, that a subscription for the Boston Globe might attract 5,000 people at current price(made up number), but like above if they charged $0.99 a month, they could feasibly have 20000-200,000 customers in a biz with virtually 0 marginal cost, and profit tied directly to subscriber size(ads which I assume they show to even paying subscribers after reading the article).
Newspapers are super elastic, and that price curve probably falls steeply after $1.00 a month.
Saw the Star Tribune doing some fun pricing stuff a month or so ago. Just try and compare these prices:
- Digital: First Month free, then $14.99 a month
- Sunday+Digital: $13.90 for 10 weeks, then $4.54 per week, billed at $59.02 every 13 weeks
- 7 Day+Digital: $39 for 13 weeks, then $7.05 per week, billed at $35.25 every 5 weeks
Also, this crap isnt limited to web pages. Happens in the mail too. Yet these remain legal because every one of them tells you exactly what they are: in tiniest print, in the grayest of colors, in the unlikeliest of places and in the most convoluted of words.
These laws have to be cleaned up. In the meantime I am perfectly fine with publicly shaming companies that pull these tricks. We need a lot more articles like this one.
I'll add that the flipside is that publushers need revenues. I'm aware micropayments are making another go of it (David Brin is publishing an article shortly which I reviewed in draft). My thought is that that's actually the weong way to go and that what we need is superbundling, including possibly at the government level (an income-indexed content tax). Some asskicking in browser and web space to too shake out the cruft.
The Boston Globe publishes some really good long-form investigative journalism from time to time. Not always, but there are regularly some really good pieces coming out of it.
The only two things are selling relatively well online:
- non-mobile games
- subscription to porn site (friend of mine runs network and he claims that it is a gold mine)
People do not want to pay for online service. People do not want to see ads.
I'm not sure how this is sustainable. We already see that cloud storage providers stop offering ridiculous amount of storage for free.
I don't agree with these practices, but the real price does appear to be on that page. At the right hand side (where I suspect many people would overlook it...), it says:
> At the end of your introductory period, continue on the weekly rate of $3.99 for your first year.
However, while I was watching the documentary 'Spotlight', which was The Globe's 2002 expose on the Roman Catholic church, it occurred to me - How are good newspapers to survive and turn a profit? Readers are unwilling to pay/subscribe and online ad revenue is falling.
It's a genuine problem and I sure hope some of these newspapers survive and are still around a decade from now. The WSJ, NYT, and WaPos will, but what about some of the the others?
That should be illegal - accept the same channel for sales also for cancellations.
i think "dark patterns" is a little strong. most of what the globe's doing here is just standard on-boarding marketing stuff IMHO. not stating on the article page itself that the 99c price is temporary hardly seems like a major sin when that fact is clearly communicated on the landing page.
Looking carefully through all the things the blogger is claiming, I think the strongest point he makes is that the globe doesn't make it clear that the "real" price doubles after 1 year.
I am already a subscriber so I couldn't make it through the flow to see exactly how it's communicated, but if that's not clear, obviously it should be and that's not a minor point.
I emailed the globe's editor, brian mcgrory, who is definitely a no-BS kind of guy, telling him lots of boston people are checking this out this morning (since it's on the HP) and he should respond :)
I'd like to say, "$0.99 a week for 4 weeks? Cool, here's a temporary number that expires in exactly one month. Please cut my subscription off after then."
Of course, I suspect that the benefit of the entrenched system in the US for everyone but consumers will guarantee that this will be really difficult to accomplish in reality.
But who are these idiots who sign up when nagged this way?
Are they the same idiots who buy products when spammed?
Or is this all the same 0.1% return for effort that spammers also rely on, where it is zero cost for them to spam even if the return rate is tiny.
Do you want Prime? No thanks.
DO YOU WANT PRIME NO!
FUCK YOU DO YOU WANT PRIME FUCK OFF!
For EVERY purchase!
Humongous button saying "yes", not even a button, just a discrete link that lets me sheepishly say "not right now".
NO! I do not want prime! EVER! It's hugely expensive, I have patience with my shipping, and I'm completely disinterested in your streaming service.
and then they change the layout. Now the options are "yes", "yes", and "maybe later".
Yes. After being an amazon customer for maybe 15 years I finally accidentally clicked one of the "yes" buttons. The new one. I just clicked "whatever is not the yes button", but they added a second one.
To their credit, it was pretty easy to say "don't renew after free trial ends".
I do think it's pretty normal for the consumer to say "okay well, if that's the price for 4 weeks only, what happens after that?". The fact that that is not made clear immediately is shady, but I'm not sure it's a true deception.
Also, the locution "dark patterns" in the headline is a weird term that is, frankly, more deceptive than anything the writer purports to reveal the Globe does.
Github repo (Its MIT licensed): https://github.com/kanflo/aaduino
What I really liked about this approach is that it makes packaging the "Arduino" inside a common battery holder very easy. Maybe one or two holes are needed to connect sensors and you have a pretty nifty enclosed "Arduino". What we now need is someone to build a battery enclosure with exposed poins. Anyone from Adafruit, Tindie, etc. here? :)
With the low price of something like the Pi Zero which is running a full version of linux, or something like the Esp8266 which can run many different languages, you're basically paying shipping costs. What benefit does arduino have in this future, other than a large existing network, which I understand can't be overlooked as a strength.
Everything seems to have disappeared. What happened?
This would be a great way to prototype a simple wearable project that doesn't use wireless radios.
See for more info on this: http://www.digitalsmarties.net/products/JeeNode
I appreciate what arduino has done, but at some point it's too much.
Am I missing something, or is this just your average TC article?
I guess this serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating the power of a well-known brand and what happens when you lose control of it.
I read that with a Boston accent
Kinda wish I was better at stuff like this, maybe I should begin playing around with my Arduino again.
Edit: well that didn't work. URL changed back from http://johan.kanflo.com/the-aaduino/.
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11538219 and marked it well off-topic.)
My best sleep comes when I'm camping though. This is definitely not a comfortable or familiar environment, but I still sleep very well and feel refreshed in the morning.
That being said, I usually sleep terribly in friends' houses or AirBnBs.
I tell people you need a place you can trust
Both wholly from a safety perspective to quelch this brain patrol
But also to trust your environments' behaviour
For instance, does your brain trust your phone on the night stand to leave your sleep uninterrupted? Or will it always be monitoring for familiar signals
similarly, can you trust your hotel to have consistent environment, or did you request a wake up call that your brain will be looking out for?
The Economist also reported it, and explicitly made the point that a hotel chain can use this in their marketing. Where we normally think of unique as being a good thing, this promotes consistency, so it's better to always stay in the same hotel chain instead of using Airbnb or whoever is cheapest on hotels.com.
However, when I'm sleeping in Inn, Hotels, etc. I can sleep comfortably.
I wonder what the reasoning might be for those situations
Really hope she was misquoted there and especially since it's not a quote. There's is no evidence or tests in this study to support this claim.
During this time, it was not unusual for me to get very little sleep many days in a row. As a coping mechanism, I learned somewhat to "half-sleep", where I would close one eye and relax that side while continuing to do things using the other eye.
I wouldn't consider it sleeping just on one side of the brain, but there was definitely something different going on. I found that 2-4 hours of that would help my overall wakefulness.
Fortunately I had my condition addressed, but it would have been interesting to see if over time I would have developed into a full sleep-wake state of consciousness.
I sprung up from bed, said smth i couldnt remember, and just like that passed out again when a friend got in the room in my sleep. Weird.
Lol, Game of thrones quote.
There will be an environmental impact, but it will be from hundreds of millions of humans not getting malaria and climbing their way out of property, not from the lack of mosquitoes in the ecosystem. It's still a significant problem, but our current solution of "let all the poor people die" is not a good one.
Granted, we can never be certain about it. We're not deities, we're still limited by information theory and epistemology. But we're pretty damn sure. Way more than we need to be to go save half a million people a year.
Do we actually understand Mosquitos role in the planet's eco system?
Let's kill all of the mosquitos because we find their presence unpleasant. Well, that's done and...oh, shit. Turns out there was a value to mosquitos after all. Anyone think to save some of that DNA?
Perhaps after a period of rapid upheaval, humanity develops the technology to capture and control those super powerful flora and fauna, and use them for our own devices.
Then we can finally become Pokemon trainers.
Also you may think that most organism causing diseases are bad, but they can be actually useful in your own organism most of the time, and only trigger a disease once their population is out of control or when your body is not tuned correctly anymore.
Killing everything that seems to affect us in a bad way could snow ball into terrible consequences. Not to say I'm not glad that the plague is out of the picture, but everything is not "plague-level".
BTW: I have malaria. I hate mosquitos. I still believe we should not eradicate mosquitos.
Not only will this be good for the millions of human children who won't die, but we'll gain a better understanding of ecological principles at which we can now only guess. This isn't the last species we'll want to change, but there may only be a few we want to eliminate this way. The knowledge gained in the anti-Anopheles project will be useful for less destructive efforts as well.
If there's a fly in my room, buzzing on the window, I would open the window and let it fly away. If there's a big ant or a spider or a bee on my foot, I'd wait for it to explore me and then go on its way (although I'm scared of spiders and allergic to bee stings).
But even a hardcore flower sniffing fly kissing hippy like myself has his limit. And that limit is called The Mosquito.
I've sent so many bad vibes towards this species that they'd stopped biting me years ago. Even so, I still hate them for the sleepless nights and for the crazy, bad, aggressive thoughts that they've spawned inside my mind with their evil buzz.
One of the worst things about them is that it takes just one slap - 50 ms - to transform a living, buzzing mosquito into a bloody spot on the wall. They don't even have time to understand wtf has happened to them !
One moment she's like "Yeah! Who I should suck next?!" and next moment she's mush.
No pain, no regrets, no suffering. Nothing !
Yet I have to live with the memory of the suffering it has caused me my entire life.
Maybe we should design mosquitoes with more advanced nervous systems - optimized for feeling pain and suffering - and make their bodies more resistant and stronger, so that humans can torture them properly.
This "let's interbreed them with sterile males" sounds like a really soft and humane (?) punishment - give them lab grown mosquito studs so that those bloodsucking bitches can have a good sex life ? What kind of revenge is that ?
No! They must suffer !
Oh my, you see what thoughts they've spawned in me ? Otherwise, I'm pretty peaceful..
(not my story, I read it in a history book about India)
One (single) notable role mosquitos played was stopping early settlements from inhabiting and destroying much of the world's rainforests... "nature's Viet Cong".
It's sort of like the people who react to robotics with concerns that the robots will go rogue and turn on their creators. Yeah, this is like a 90% probability event in movies, but that does not make it a reasonable thing to worry about in the real world.
Yeah, of course we should carefully think through the consequences before acting. That's what is happening. But if the mosquito experts say the ecological impact is likely to be negligible, then it probably will be. These guys are experts. Species go extinct all the time, and life goes on because it's pretty robust.
I'm not saying scientists are all knowing and can foresee all side effects, though I suspect if they are willing to state a view like that with confidence, they won't be far off. What I'm saying is the ZOMG BIRDS EAT MOSQUITOS and WHAT IF WE INFECT OURSELVES AND GET WIPED OUT talk is a little silly. Cool it there, Spielberg. ;)
While we're at it, get rid of ticks.
Last year my daughter got bit so badly that both of her legs looked like she had a huge rash. It was just a string of mosquito bites combined with a sensitivity to them that exaggerated an already rough problem.
All that said, I'm not sure I'm pro-extermination. We have a lot of bats that come around and eat the mosquitos around dusk. I'm sure they'd find other things to eat, but I like seeing them skim the pool for a drink and then eat a few dozen skeeters while they dart around. I also don't like people playing god with this type of stuff. The butterfly effect is real, and if we exterminate them all, we won't know what the effect is until it's already too late. Realistically, the earth adapts to whatever we do to it. Long after we're gone, there will be tons of interesting life forms. That still doesn't make me any less uneasy about it.
I don't know.
"What does it mean in practice to hold a philosophy that declares that pristine nature has intrinsic value in itself, and that regards Man and his activities as intrusive threats to the so-called ecological balance?
I have discussed the history, meaning, and basic premises of environmentalism previously, in my monograph The Green Machine and in my recorded talk "Green Cathedrals." I also explore these issues on my ecoNOT.com website.
But here I want to focus on the consequences of accepting core environmentalist premisesspecifically, their deadly impact on human life."
Those who object to the eradication of mosquitoes are stating pretty clearly the value of human life according to their philosophy.
Such a strategy might be more feasible than total extermination anyway since eliminating mosquitos in unpopulated regions would probably be the most expensive part of such a project due to the lack of infrastructure in those areas.
Of course, once the mosquitos return, you still have to deal with those annoying bites....
Mosquitos are food for birds and bats. I think that talking to bird and bat biologists would be the best idea.
If so, why do we care about the "ecological" impact of mosquito species that feed on humans? If anything, the ecosystem is unbalanced given the human population and the amount of mosquito food sources.
Mosquitoes aren't even "responsible" for those diseases... Maybe we should invest in proactive body defenses against virus instead of just killing some random things.
Even if we just kill those mosquitoes species you know what? Nature evolves. Other mosquitoes and viruses will come. Do we kill them too?
1) That quote "Life would continue as before or even better." is not even the conclusion in the Nature report. It's in the fifth paragraph of the first part out of the three part report. I guess this author just stopped here and failed to read the rest parts of the report for his conclusion?
2) The other two parts of the reports talk about the mosquito biomass and its impact to arctic tundra ecosystem, food chains and even cacao pollination.
3) The original author Janet Fang actually concluded the report by quoting entomologist Joe Conlon "If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life." And the more important part is the next sentence: "Something better or worse would take over."
The key is that there is a high probability something worse would take over when you tried to mess Nature's arrangement in the past 100 million years abruptly. As noted by other HN user, Chairman Mao also thought getting rid of sparrows was really a good idea.
 These are some examples, I am not endorsing these guys just found them for folks who were wondering what I was talking about -- https://www.megacatch.com/
 http://www.intellectualventures.com/inventions-patents/our-i... -- if only someone other than Intellectual Ventures had built it ...
If you believe in such a cause, and honestly believe the downside was zero, and you have the tool to do the job... What is holding you back? That's an honest question and I'd love to hear their responses.
> GEM technology is a process of achieving sustainable mosquito control in an eco friendly manner by providing artificial breeding grounds utilizing common household utensils and destroying larvae by non-hazardous natural means such as throwing them in dry places or feeding them to larvae eating fishes.
Process in short - http://www.appropedia.org/GEM_mosquito_control#Modus_operand....
First massive reduction, to test wether the Eco-System can handle it short term.
If yes, eradication until the diseases have vannished.
Measurement if the ecosystem handles it.Reintroduction if needed.
> The ugly situation on the ground does not call for Integrated Mosquito Management; it demands a program of Total Mosquito Destruction.
> were left to wait and watch swarms of evil on the wing, mating in midair, and landing on our shores. An enemy has made its way to the nations borders. Now is not the time for soft responses.
"Zika virus can be spread during sex by a man infected with Zika to his partners."
My wife is pregnant now, we live in Southern California, and I feel fairly powerless to do anything except ask my wife to DEET up, be on the lookout for freestanding water, add screens, and pray.
Possibly responsible for most heart failures in people under the age of 50.
"Tabarnak! we would have won if we had some damn mosquitoes!"
Because it's probably easier than just preventing mosquitos.
Yeah ok, just mosquitoes, but it made me think of the angry emperor.
People are far more destructive to the environment and have been around for far less longer than the mosquito, which has been here since the beginning.
At least something like a mosquito is honest about its intentions. It wants to have a handy blood meal from you. A human, on the other hand, will engage in varying forms of deceit, deception and then probably fuck your mother behind your back, before they sucks you dry.
Which one would you rather have around? Something to think on next time your get bit by one.
I don't know if the story behind the facebookcorewwwi.onion domain name itself has been talked about much, but we wanted a memorable name for the domain so we took a new cluster that hadn't been put in production yet and threw something like 500k cores at brute forcing onion names till we had a memorable domain name. Alec had a script that looked for hashes that started with facebook and then he picked the one that seemed to fit the most. And that's how we have facebookcorewwwi.onion now.
I do not trust your company, and I think you are bound to act unethically in the future. But I do not ask you to become a trustworthy ethical company. Mess with the accounts of my friends all you want. I just want to be invited to the next BBQ. People have stopped using e-mail for announcing these social events, and _all_ use Facebook. Could it be possible for me to not be on Facebook, yet still stay up-to-date on what my friends, or hell, even my parents now, are doing? A more advanced social graph API that hooks into email, RSS, Twitter, whatever... ?
I'm sure you also have my email-address from the address books of my contacts, so you could verify me.
As one of your longest non-users (I remember when TheFacebook required a Harvard-email for invite), please let me become a semi-user. It won't pay you a dime, but it will make the world a better place.
So, I wasn't able to login via TOR via the purposefully created .onion address. Also, sent an issue report via non-TOR login about this, but never got any response.
Note also that this seems to mean to me, that there may be people who are cut off from FB via TOR same as me, but who don't even have a way to notify FB about the fact. And thus not having any chance of having the bug fixed.
You don't get mobile notifications this way, so I just get my notifications via email instead. And I uploaded my public PGP key to Facebook, so the emails they send me are encrypted. Getting notifications via email also means that Facebook doesn't even know if or when I've read a particular notification.
To read those encrypted emails on my phone I use K-9 Mail with OpenKeyChain. My Yubikey Neo acts like a smart card reader to my phone over NFC so I don't need to give my phone direct access to my secret PGP key.
This setup works for me because I try to limit my Facebook usage, keep my number of "friends" on there to a minimum, and lie to Facebook whenever they want me to explicitly supply information.
in theory the only thing you're leaking over a plain https is, "Hey this guy has friends." (this connection is visiting facebook).
meanwhile in theory I'd expect facebook to leak everything else on their end, because come on. I have next to zero expectation of privacy on facebook.
by that I mean you think people are planning terrorist plots over facebook? come on.
so I find the mashup of tor with facebook to be kind of bizarre.
Google Chrome will no longer support HTTP/2 on vanilla 14.04 after May 15th , even if you're using the latest official upstream NGINX packages. This is because 14.04 ships with a version of OpenSSL that does not support the ALPN extension (prior to OpenSSL 1.0.2 you're limited to NPN, now deprecated). There was a bit of back-and-forth about the exact date, as the change was originally scheduled for earlier. However, Chrome decided to specifically push back the date so that there would be an Ubuntu LTS release available with the required support . If you're still stuck on SPDY, that's going to be dropped too, so there's really no good reason not to simply use HTTP/2 at this point.
1) If you use the nvidia drivers from the graphics-drivers PPA, starting the default non-root X server will hang with no graphics output. Installing xserver-xorg-legacy fixes this.
2) LXC+Linux 4.4 seems to be very broken: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/1666#issuecomment-21290311...
3) Pulseaudio now uses shared memory and playing audio inside a firejail will break the pulseaudio server: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/69#issuecomment...
No need for bash scripts, custom watchdog and daemonise tools, etc.
A welcome and saner default. I'm thinking of moving back to Ubuntu from LinuxMint (I was thinking of Arch as well but not too confident of being on the bleeding edge).
A few weeks ago I had to dig up an old 12.04 machine and bring it back to the modern age. Much to my surprise, I was able to upgrade it all the way to 15.10 with minimal hassle. While the normal apt repos were dead for 12.04, Canonical keeps around an archived mirror. So you just edit the sources file to point at the archive, and then you can upgrade from there. Impressive.
Not that Canonical/Ubuntu don't have their warts. The Amazon fiasco, Unity, their cloud services, etc. And at the end of the day it's still Linux, with all the problems that brings. But, all things considered, I rate Ubuntu as the best of the bunch and feel grateful for the gift they give to the community.
Always worth a read before you fire up the installer...
Now, I would love to know, if I'm a maintainer of Foo (and you can get it today via `apt-get install foo`), how will I be able to start packaging using snap rather than relying on deb packages that come from debian? I'd love any feedback, cheers!
Inused to hate on Ubuntu, but on my 2014 Macbook Pro, it was the one distro that "just worked", and since I mostly run debian servers, I figure Sticking to the similar ecosystem reduces mental load of switching.
I still have my issues with Shuttleworth and Canonical, but hey, it's linux, so I can remove the crap I dont like (unlike some things, staring at you windows 10).
The security of the MD5 has been severely compromised, with its weaknesses having been exploited in the field, most infamously by the Flame malware in 2012. The CMU Software Engineering Institute considers MD5 essentially "cryptographically broken and unsuitable for further use". 
Cephfs v10.2.0 Jewel: "This major release of Ceph will be the foundation for the next long-term stable release. (...) This is the first release in which CephFS is declared stable and production ready!"
I think this is just an issue if you are doing 3D graphics work or gaming.
but it seems even Ubuntus Server are not speedy today (Atlas server are also slow)
(Update) it seems I'm getting an error with it :/
The guest machine entered an invalid state while waiting for it to boot. Valid states are 'starting, running'. The machine is in the 'gurumeditation' state. Please verify everything is configured properly and try again. If the provider you're using has a GUI that comes with it, it is often helpful to open that and watch the machine, since the GUI often has more helpful error messages than Vagrant can retrieve. For example, if you're using VirtualBox, run `vagrant up` while the VirtualBox GUI is open. The primary issue for this error is that the provider you're using is not properly configured. This is very rarely a Vagrant issue.
For some reason these are not linked yet from the 'Downloads' page at ubuntu.com.
So 4k resolution support is becoming recognized here?
> Transport minister Robert Goodwill admitted authorities had not yet confirmed whether what struck the Airbus A320
> Mr Goodwill also dismissed calls for tighter rules on drone use to protect against terror threats insisting current rules governing drone use were strong enough. He said it would be much easier for terrorists to attack airports on the ground with rucksacks or car bombs than orchestrate the attack from a drone aircraft.
> He warned that any moves to enforce geo-fencing rules would be vulnerable to being hacked by "somebody who could get round that software".
> "And indeed the early reports of a dent in the front of the plane were not confirmed - there was no actual damage to the plane"
> "the pilot has a lot of other things to concentrate [while landing] on so we're not quite sure what they saw so I think we should maybe not overreact too much."
This is a sane, rational response.. I am just not used to hearing it come from government officials. This should be a model for the type of responses that government officials have to these types of situations.
That said, I still think it's a good idea to implement. It will make it easier for casuals like me to quickly be warned when I'm venturing into forbidden areas. Sure, I could ignore it or hack around it, but at least it's an easy to implement safeguard that will keep most people away.
This is an amazingly flimsy basis for a headline.
Is there any advance in drone tech to make it quieter? Any time I've been near a drone in operation, the loud buzzing hits a particular psychological frequency (probably the "it's a large flying insect!") that stresses me out.
I don't think I'm alone in this. Other animals seem to dislike drones.
I think most of us animals would mind them less if they were more pleasant-sounding, or closer to silent.
Hitting a commercial jetliner with an off the shelf drone is impossible--especially at that altitude. With $8K it becomes feasible, but I'd put the level of difficulty at about the same as driving a Bugatti Veyron at 70mph in reverse and executing a j-turn (think Hollywood 180 spin) into a tight spot between two SUV's at the grocery store--3 times in a row.
As rare as plastic bags are at 1700 feet, if it was a sunny day in London in an area with a lot of jet traffic, then it was in all likelihood a bag that was kicked up by a car, caught a massive thermal and managed to get blown around by jet traffic.
(1) Fly fixed wing RC in excess of 180mph weekly and have flown quads for 3 years.
For drones, they have systems now that they can deploy to take them down immediately. http://www.skysafe.io/
And please, leave the rest of us who live/visit nowhere near airports alone.
This is just D&D is the devil panaroia for 2016
1000s of 'near misses' and no hits is a industry that plane lies.
Often, engineers or inventors would create something and then scientists would have to explain why it happened. In the last few generations, physicists and mathematicians would come up with theories and engineers would have to build equipment to test those theories.
The EmDrive is one of the rare modern situations where someone has engineered a device that shouldn't work according to what we know and the scientists are having to come up with the explanation.
Personally, solving a mystery is more exciting than purely intellectual theories and the EmDrive has created a very interesting mystery.
That's a misleading statement. I'm passingly familiar with a few of the experiments they're referring to, and none of them both produced significant results and were performed by groups which seemed un-suspect. I'm not aware of any peer reviewed paper on this stuff, and I don't personally know any non-laypeople who believe there is anything actually remarkable happening here.
 fixed some grammar
"In this scheme there is a minimum allowed acceleration which depends on a Hubble scale , so, if has increased in cosmic time, there should be a positive correlation between the anomalous centripetal acceleration seen in equivalent galaxies, and their distance from us, since the more distant ones are seen further back in time when, if the universe has indeed been expanding, was smaller. The mass to light ratio (M/L) does seem to increase as we look further away. The M/L ratio of the Sun is 1 by definition, for nearby stars it is 2, for galaxies it is 50, for galaxy pairs it is 100 and for clusters it is 300. As an aside: equation (11) could be used to model inflation, since when was small in the early universe the minimum acceleration is predicted to be larger." (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0612599v1.pdf)
If an effect was stronger in the early universe, you'd expect to see a big correlation between the effect size in a galaxy, and that galaxy's redshift z. It wouldn't make any sense to say that "galaxies" have a ratio of 50, since there are galaxies at every redshift; many are nearby and have redshifts of almost zero, while the Ultra Deep Field galaxies have very large redshifts of up to ~10. If the number is really the same for "galaxies" in general, that means there's no distance dependence, but McCulloch doesn't seem to realize this. He seems to imply that nearby stars have a higher mass/luminosity ratio because of their distance compared to the Sun (?!), but the time-delay effect for anything in the Milky Way is negligible (< 0.0005% of the universe's age). In reality, nearby areas of space will have higher ratios than the Sun just because they contain many objects which, unlike the Sun, don't emit much light (red/brown/white dwarfs, gas and dust, etc.). Likewise, he seems to imply that "galaxy clusters" are farther away than "galaxies", but most galaxies are part of clusters, and we can observe both galaxies and galaxy clusters at both small and large redshifts.
It would be interesting to see how the theory behind the Unruh radiation works with "The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165#)
Or also MOND (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics) Which also has predictions based on very low accelerations.
It seems like the theories could be related.
(says an ex Nuclear physicist who's now doing computers).
The one YouTube guy discovered the beaded-chain lifting effect, and then it had to be studied to find out what was going on. Obviously that was an easily reproduced experiment.
So with this thing, we must find conclusively the unmeasured heat or ions or whatever and show a repeatable method for such mistakes. That is my opinion about science, of course I probably lost most scientists with my first sentence.
By extension, I think this is the most interesting article I've seen to date on the EmDrive: it seems to have a basis in a fairly non-controversial result of GR, which in turn is something which nicely explains an otherwise bizarre physical phenomenon. And, to top it off, there are a number of falsifiable predictions which are within our ability to test. I'm interested in whether any of my assumptions are wrong.
A working reactionless drive isn't just extraordinary. It's utterly mind-boggling. The least interesting thing is that it's a free-energy device.
It requires breaking spatial symmetry. If it works, it's not some edge-case theoretical law that's being broken. It's the geometry of space.
Maybe Hawking and Milner should be considering this for Starshot?
> ... (McCulloch) proposes a constant term that modifies the acceleration corresponding to the inertial mass. He says torsion balance experiments can't detect it because torsion balance experiments measure differences in acceleration. But he's wrong because since it's a constant term he "predicts", it should manifest in the Eotvos parameter. Torsion balance experiments have gone well beyond the limit to detect this. But it's irrelevant because he completely misunderstands all the theory he bases this on.
But the minimal measurement results I've seen are not compatible with the radiation pressure multiplied by some large factor for the Q of the cavity, which seems to be the claim from some. That really would violate our understanding of conservation of momentum, rather than violating our assumptions about where the momentum goes in this experiment. And that seems to be ruled out experimentally so far.
So the EmDrive glitches the universe size? This is hilarious.
McCullochs theory could help to change that, although it is hardly a mainstream idea. It makes two challenging assumptions. The first is that photons have inertial mass.
When I was taking college physics, there was a question on the exam about radiation pressure. I missed that day, so had no idea how to solve it. "a 5mW laser is reflected off a mirror (perpendicular) what is the force exerted on the mirror"? Later looking it up in the book there was a page on this and a derivation using electromagnetic theory. In the exam however, I decided to convert 1 second of laser energy to mass, bounce it off the mirror at speed=c, compute the force and change in momentum (over change in time which was 1s). I got the right answer of course.
The logic is simple. If we can convert back and forth between matter and energy, any experimental setup must obey conservation of momentum and it's CG must not move. So a laser inside a closed spaceship would actually be tranfering mass (as energy) from one end to the other. The net effect must be the same as if that mass was moved any other way.
I derived a general expression for radiation pressure after the exam and it's identical to the EM one from the book. Photons behave - and must behave - as if they have mass with a velocity of c. By the same reasoning, gravity must bend light rays, though I have not compared this prediction to that of relativity.
as everything does :) I think it is quantized at all levels, it just becomes noticeable at low levels as usually.
Edit: These so called "laws" are laws in our minds and things like EmDrive show us that our minds can expand forming new "laws".
>If you are a white male remember all the privilege you have enjoyed since birth just because you were born that way. It is your responsibility to change the industry and its bias towards more inclusion.
I'm from an Eastern Europe and my family never was rich, I had to put in a tremendous effort to even get into the industry. Assuming I got an easy ride simply because I'm white is a pretty racist statement and I find myself surprised that no one is calling out the author on it.
>It is your duty to send the elevator down.
No, it's not. Just like women don't have any duty to ensure that there's an arbitrary number of men working as models and just like black NBA players have no obligation to ensure that there's enough white guys on the team I have no obligation to worry about some arbitrary quotas.
And the mangers' attitude is that "they can shake any tree and it rains qualified programmer resumes". Here in Toronto, there is a company called Allegis and all major employers post their developer job here. The headhunters are plugged into Allegis and they call you based on keyword match. Have you ever seen poor people huddled outside HomeDepot, hoping to be picked up? Thats what it like to be a developer searching for a job in my town. Most enterprise dev jobs are focused on a very narrow set of skills; so it doesn't matter how good you are with designing solutions or algorithms you know -- what matters is do you know java/c#/angular(new) ? And thats all that matters for Allegis keyword match. You are probably thinking I can learn more technologies ; what I am pointing out is that enterprise s/w development process is based on the fundamental principle of getting barely skilled people who can put in the hours and keep their mouth shut. But these jobs pay a lot more than startup jobs and have a lot more security.
So some unasked advice from a 40+ then which I wish I was told when I was 17 or something: a) believe in yourself; learn from others, but if you have strong opinions or think something is wrong then voice it even though others (are supposed to) have more experience b) fast typing and making long hours are irrelevant c) get out there and mingle with non coders a lot.
All of these 3 points (I learned them at different stages, in order of appearance above; c I only started doing 3 years ago) made me never having to need a job as such, always worked where/when I wanted, always made enough money and usually have enough spare time to do whatever while still performing.
tldr: Banal, overconfident advice on the subject of a software career, devolving into political rants at times.
As a Rails dev, this made me chuckle, yes, I've put a lot of hours into troubleshooting dev setups. But this is the wrong example. All of these are installed with one line on the terminal. And really, there are far simpler web stacks to pick up without even having to leave Ruby. Sinatra on system Ruby works just fine. All you do is 'gem install sinatra', open up a text editor and go.
Really, the complexity you have to watch out for is the complexity you impose yourself. Choosing the wrong tools for the job or the wrong abstractions. For many applications, Rails is overkill.
I grew up a military brat. We didn't have a lot of money. I wore hand-me-downs, had iron-on patches on my knees. My family could not afford to send me to college, so I served in the military to get the GI Bill and worked my own way through college.
I'm over 40, in IT and no one ever gave me hand out in relation to any job or education.
Like an earlier poster said, I'm under no obligation to do anything. I believe in hard work. No one should be given a free ride because they are black, homosexual, female, whatever. Work your ass off to get where you want to be. Full stop. No one is under a moral or other obligation to get you in the door or ensure fair play. I'm not an asshole to people, but everyone has the same opportunities. I realize the military is not for everyone, but young men especially can really benefit. You can do a four-year hitch and have your college paid for. If you like it, you could re-up as an officer and the sky is the limit.
The problem with people today is they have a sense of entitlement that is misplaced. No one owes anyone anything other than moral decency: please, thank you, that kind of thing. Work hard, play hard. Life is better without handouts. You have a sense of fulfillment when you pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
While neither Karl Marx nor Thomas Piketty have a great track record when it comes to economic policy prescriptions (Dean Baker's opinion on this might be interesting for people who share much of their world view with all three of these economists), will they teach me to better negotiate based on my "knowledge of my worth"? I rather doubt that they will, given that the punchline of much of their writing is that worker compensation necessarily trends towards the subsistence level over time, r>g, etc. etc. Certainly if the point is to "know your worth" in the sense of being able to negotiate a better compensation, a better source ought to be available.
Separately, it's an interesting turn of events that fairly politicized economists' writings are now recommended reading for computer programmers. The next logical step is a recommendation to join a political party (certainly joing the political party would help one's career in the USSR where Marx was required reading for people entering the professions.)
Time is the most precious thing you have, so don't waste it learning stuff you won't need. Even if it's shinny. Resist, and for the things you do need, don't become an 'expert' -- pick the things you NEED and scope it well. Then hop along on the new tech that came around...
I always see any new thing I take on as an investment, and I try to make it pay down the line...
I didn't use to do that, and I'm an expert in a few tech that I had fun learning, but have absolutely zero relevance today. See, I can write Altivec code without the scalar version for example. That was useful for about 2 years...
This is actually originally from Ecclesiastes, not the Romans.
That was an eye-opener. For some reason I thought Switzerland was a worker's utopia with the relatively higher salaries.
It's an amalgamation of every Medium tech-post ever.
That aside, a lot of the more generic points make sense.
Why the age of 30? Just curious.
While I'm sure LLVM is an important technology, I don't feel it's everyone's job to learn and know everything there is to know about it. There will perhaps be a niche group of developers making cool things with LLVM, most developers can get along just fine without knowing anything about it.
I started my career as a software developer at precisely 10am, on Monday October 6th, 1997... I had recently celebrated my 24th birthday.
Especially Europeans have problems thinking like this. I always advise engineers to keep on looking for better offers / jobs the moment they take a new job. Instead many hibernate in a job for 3-5 years without thinking of their careers and hence miss opportunities.
Disclaimer: To help engineers finding jobs / working on their careers and support IT-firms to find people, I recently started a small headhunting agency.
So mail me, if you look for a tech-job in Zurich. Salaries here after [!] taxes start at 7000 CHF / month. Find my e-mail address in my hn-handle or check out my story "8 reasons why I moved to Switzerland to work in IT" https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-t...
There's one of those in Hemel Hempstead. And surprisingly it works really well...
On a related note, if you have the chance to go to Hemel Hempstead, don't.
Paradoxically, I have been working on shared variable concurrency, using a partially ordered trace semantics. Until I retired, I was too frightened to tackle anything so difficult.
Definitely life after 40, 50, 60, 70, ...
Stopped reading here because I assumed the rest would be equally as well informed. Shame too, I was enjoying the perspective.
Edit: Decided to give the author the benefit of the doubt and continued reading for the opportunity to have my perspective changed. With that said, I'm also not very fond of the anti-white male narrative quoted below, and I'll elaborate on why
> If you are a white male remember all the privilege you have enjoyed since birth just because you were born that way. It is your responsibility to change the industry and its bias towards more inclusion.
I don't think the real problem here is with being white, male or privileged. (Though, obviously our industry has a problem with diversity.) Programmers, for better or worse, typically aren't very sociable people, and thus become abrasive to dissenting opinions. (I'll be the first to admit that I do this, and will continue to do it as I try to improve and reduce this behaviour.) Whether that opinion comes from a transexual black 10x-er or a straight white female who recently graduated from college, or even a seasoned veteran with 25 years experience. Quite often, a difference of opinion for programmers defaults to "they're wrong because they don't think like me." I experience this daily, and I'm a straight white 21 year old male from an affluent community. So to the authors point, yes if we could stop being assholes to each other that would be great. However I absolutely disagree that the behaviour of my peers is racially motivated, and I resent the implication.
And I'm supposed to "send the elevator down" just to those who I assume to be the most slighted minority? How do you suppose that works? Should I just assume that all women need my help and support because they're women? What indicators would one even use to determine such a qualification, other than being systematically sexist and racist? Here's a thought: help everyone, as often as possible! Don't motivate your behaviour based on peoples' identities!
But yes, I do agree with the underlying sentiment that follows, I just wish it wasn't prefaced with unnecessary garbage.
> Do not critisize or make fun of the technology choices of your peers; for other people will have their own reasons to choose them, and they must be respected. Be prepared to change your mind at any time through learning.
Perfect. Why did we need the intro?
What I do when a new tech hype comes along, is allocate myself some time to it. Ok, Webpack? Let me give myself three days (around 20 hours) to check it out. If I don't understand it at first, keep pushing. If after 20 hours, I still don't get it, abandon it and move on.
Of course, 20 hours is just an estimate. If after a day, I feel like some magic has taken place (like what Backbone.js did to me), I'm hooked.
And yes, definitely gravitate towards a galaxy. Sometimes galaxies do merge and you will reap the benefits :)
I'm 38, programming for 15 years. And I still love coding and doing systems stuff.
This is from the Old Testament.
I was reading about zeromq. From zeromq, I linked to iMatrix, OpenAMQP, GSL, and then Pieter Hintjens and Protocol of Dying. Indeed, history of software, including the people behind it, is no less interesting than the software itself.
The one thing I'll add to this, is to say that, for devs like us, things like Coursera, Udacity, EdX, etc. are really valuable. When you're a mid-career professional who already has strong technical chops in at least one area, "on demand education" like this is super valuable in multiple regards:
1. It's much more accessible since you don't have to go sit in class, on campus, every day, etc. You can fit it around your existing life much more easily.
2. It can serve as a nice way to start "bridging" to a new area. For example, if you're already, say, a skilled Java developer and you want to start moving into Data Science, MOOCs offer a nice way to pick up some additional credentials to help that transition. People argue about the value of certificates from Coursera and the like, and that's fair. I think you don't want something like that to be the only credential you have, if possible. But taken as a complement to your existing credentials, experience and skills, I believe these things can be very useful.
3. Related to (2) above, but MOOCs can be a nice way to add complementary education outside of tech altogether. If you're a developer who aspires to eventually move into management or whatever, consider taking business classes from Coursera/EdX/Udacity as well. There are some really nice offerings out there, including a complete (accredited) MBA program that you can do (partly) through Coursera in conjunction with the University of Illinois. Or maybe you're a Java developer (just an example, I don't mean to pick on Java people, as "I is one") who thinks that something to do with synthetic biology is going to be "the next big thing", but doesn't want to go back to school for a biology degree... great, there's a ton of life sciences / biology / chemistry /etc. stuff that you can take online if you want to start positioning yourself for something like that.
Let me also add this: I totally agree that you don't need to go "all in" on every new tech that comes out, and try to ride the hype wave for everything new. But, I think it's smart to at least explore (many|most|some|??) of the trendy new stuff, to a limited depth... at least dip your toes in the water, do the "Hello world of XXXX" where XXXX is Swift, or R, or Rust, or Scala, or Node, or Go or whatever. At least give yourself a fair chance to evaluate the new stuff, decide if you feel like it's worth investing more in based on direct experience, and at least get a feel for the toolchain and what-not. From there, you can kind of monitor what's going on around you and decide if/when to go deeper with new technology XXXX. Yes, doing all this requires an investment of some time, but that's part of the cost of keeping your value up.
Of course, the truth is, most of this goes equally for the "under 40" crowd as well. But the whole "keep learning new stuff" thing probably becomes a little more important as you get older. There might be exceptions like the whole "COBOL programmer who gets paid big bucks because nobody new is learning COBOL anymore" but I'd consider those situations to be exceptions.
Thanks, Adrian. Now I have an official excuse for not writing a single app with Angular/React in 2016.
Oh, and XML was totally a buzzword in '97.
I refuse to help someone just because they are female or a minority just because they are female or a minority. I also refuse to help people who won't help themselves.
Those who want to be great, I will help them every way I can. It doesn't matter gender or ethnicity. It's about work ethic.
Java is also a child of the nineties and 1.1 I believe was the first arguably "finished" implementation. I remember the computer magazines were going off on about it at the time and I got a free Java IDE off a cover disk and wrote my first 2D canvas app.
These were the two main "galaxies" I inhabited for the last 20 years with various holidays here and there. The benefit of inhabiting such relatively "open" galaxies is that they provide easily accessible conduits to other galaxies too.
Thanks for the 90s nostalgia - very nearly brought a tear to my eye.
She's currently dealing with two overlapping regulations, one from the state, the other from the city:(1) All electrical outlets must be placed less than 18 inches from the edge of a countertop, to make them accessible to people in wheelchairs
(2) A countertop must have an outlet every 18 inches, or less.
They're getting held up in permitting because there is a no constructible L-shaped countertop that satisfies both of these constraints. The best part, nobody on either side seems to care much, they're "just doing their job"...and housing isn't getting built.
I'm not sure what to make of this, other than that it's the newest brilliant "innovation" from the place that banned happy meal toys, and outlawed plastic bags.
If there's one thing we really understand, it's complexity: why it sucks, how to avoid it, and how piling on rule after rule can make the legal code "unmaintainable" (sound familiar?)
Any new builder will see her housing development costs go up, and given the short supply of housing, will then cause RE prices to go up on all new housing. This system therefore benefits existing landowners who were able to reap higher gains on existing buildings and helps create a moat on new housing development by making it less financially lucrative.
Also, just in case anybody is curious, most solar panels are not a good economic investment for an investor. In an optimistic case, they may pay for themselves in 7-10 years but the value of the asset itself depreciates so quickly that it isn't worth the risk financially or in on-going maintenance costs.
I do think that carbon reduction is pretty essential, but it's so essential that I don't think we can waste our money on low yield actions. I'm not saying this strictly is, I'd have to read about it more, but I'm not optimistic that mandating very specific technologies will be a good approach.
When I plan to buy a house I'll seriously consider installing solar, but id almost want to tear down any installation forced on by the city. If it's your property it should be up to you to consider what you want to add to your domicile. Maybe I don't want the upfront cost of solar, or maybe I planned on other renewables.
Put solar on all your city buses, put solar on all city buildings, etc. Don't force solar on homeowners who never wanted it.
I've lived in many US cities and WoW San Fran is a shock to the system!
Would it not have been sufficient to offer tax incentive carrots instead of making it a requirement?
Another great example is homelessness. Homelessness is actually something which should be addressed at the Federal (for Veterans) and State (for people who should receive medical help) levels, not the city. Oh well.
The end result of this solar initiative will be to increase costs for the poor. The 'real' solution is for CA gov't to stipulate that all dwellings of X and Y quality that receive Z amounts of sunlight are required to offset A% of their annual energy consumption with Solar/wind energy. You can either build it on your own home or buy a share in a solar/wind farm.
I thought the problem was that they have a lot of architecture preservation and not enough new office and residential construction.
Similar to Boston and Manhattan, mature cities where there isn't that much new construction, so this kind of ordinance seems more symbolic than practical.
That said might be a huge opportunity for a microgrid company to set up panels, smart meters and batteries in buildings, and then just have a single meter at the perimeter.
Remember when Calirofrnia sued the US Government over climate change? They've been doing a whole lot of not much for some time.
Learn more here: https://www.wundercapital.com/
Nevermind that the parent poster wasn't saying anything negative about this policy besides that it detracts interest/investment in rectifying issues that would have a far larger environmental impact for a lower price.
The relevant facts here: America is bad and Americans hate the environment. Let's invest in the basic environmental amenities guys!
25 years ago? Lets go even further into the past with our nationality shaming. Let's draw some other parallels from Germany's wonderful past actions.
Americans have a lot to learn.
git push origin --delete $(git branch --merged origin/master -r | grep -v master | grep origin | cut -d/ -f2-)
EDIT: And another thing. Turn all your Git aliases into shell aliases (e.g. "git status" is aliased to "git st" is aliased to just "st" on my system) with this one weird trick! https://github.com/majewsky/devenv/blob/2c4252d37597617a493f...
However, not on board with the hate for rebase. If it's your feature branch and you aren't sharing it with others, I'd much rather get a cleaned up PR than one filled with junk commits because the author was afraid to rebase.
Squashing a merge commit is a perfect way to reintroduce old code back into master.
Squashing onto a merge commit is great way to lose changes. It's been a while since I have tried this, but creating a didactic repo if fairly easy. Create a repo with two feature branches, a file on each of master and the feature branches, merge featureA to featureB, make some changes or delete a file, `commit --amend` on the merge, and merge featureB to master. Then use `git cat-file` to look at those commits and commit trees. I've seen mysterious things such as simple as unreported changes to files mysteriously being deleted from the repo.
git commit --fixup=<commitref> git rebase -i --autosquash HEAD~5
git checkout -
How do you guys feel about these in git commit messages?
[alias] ll = log --graph --oneline --decorate --date=short --all --pretty=format:'%ad %h %Cgreen%an %Cred%d %Creset%s'
git diff --name-only | uniq | xargs $EDITOR
and this one to open files with conflicts
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=U | uniq | xargs $EDITOR
git add $(git diff --name-only)
I rather use Git Extensions on windows and on mac Git Kraken. For beginners I think it would be better to use GUI tools.
The government isn't publishing details, but the article gives the impression that it was some Mexican political party acting out of line who should not have uploaded this data to US servers. It appears that each party receives a copy of electoral registrations.
Qu chingados? I didn't know every party got a copy of all voter registrations. This seems grossly undemocratic.
I definitely am all for doing the right thing and I might make a best effort in the same situation, but that's pretty gutsy. My overdeveloped sense of paranoia would tell me that contacting these agencies would put me on all sorts of lists I wouldn't want to be on. Who knows how easy it is for "There is a data breach" could become "I have your data, meet my demands".
This is generally a problem I've come across multiple times. Small hosters are usually quicker to respond ( or they don't at all), and then actually try and handle malicious hosts on their networks.
The large ones like Amazon or CloudFlare (especially CloudFlare) have a semi-automated process, where the impression I get is that I am talking to a really stupid bot. Or when I get through to a human, that they are so overworked that they aren't able to comprehend the sentences that write to them in plain english, so nothing get's resolved.Or they just forward my info to their customers, which in many cases is a real security risk.
If one discovers a security issue or data breach, it is best to either do nothing, or at most raise the issue very anonymously.
From this and many other leaks and breaches from companies, governments & institutions one could deduce security is imperfect & digitally massively so.
Identity theft is rampant; Biometrics are irrevocable - yet the solution is used by most people everyday.
Cryptography solves both the problem of identity and privacy simultaneously.
It is establishable as persona via chains of trust, e.g. PGP signing.
Apart from societal control there seems no good reason not to adopt a system whereby everyone is issued a private and public key - which signs every email, bank instruction, comminucation & vote.
Akin to good practice being to store only password hashes so only the individual posses the secret.
Ones identity would be ones own responsibility and huge leaks like this would reveal nothing but a list of public keys obtainable by crawling the web.
One can imagine a dystopian future nation where individuals must fight to protect their basic fundamental rights from state level adverseries operating outside the law - punchline is the worst threat is their own government.
Ever since Gibson the best science fiction is set in the present.
I find this the most interesting. I thought of a voting system where every citizen gets a unique voting key. It obviously would be a huge mistake to vote directly with such a key. Signing your voting decision makes a lot more sense. This way only the government and you know the key.
I wonder what will happen now, looks like they will have to reissue 93M codes.
James Comey, director of the FBI, said on Thursday that the cost was worth it, but added that an accommodation needed to be made with Apple and other technology companies in the future, as paying outside technologists to find ways to access highly-encrypted messages on phones used by terrorist suspects was not scalable.
One thing Ron Paul did in Congress years ago, after one of those stupid lets spend taxpayer money on a bunch of medals proposals or something, was to rephrase that expense: he challenged Congress to simply donate a percentage of their own salaries to make it happen. After all, if it was so wonderful (echoing all the things other Congress members had stood up and said about the idea before then), and so worthwhile, surely they would personally not mind chipping in something, right? Predictably, a very small number of congresspeople were suddenly willing to go quite that far.
Specifically, I live in the UK and one of the complaints law enforcement has is that US companies can (and do) totally ignore valid court orders because they don't apply in the US (reddit being an arbitrary concrete example).
So, what would be the impact of GCHQ setting up a scheme where you can sell vulnerabilities to them (assuming they do the legwork to make it legal)? Would it violate some kind of trade agreement? I assume at minimum it would harm diplomatic relations given the pressure the big companies would exert on the US to push back.
Government Technocrats: We need bigger and more powerful warheads to protect us from the Soviets.
General Public: OK we'll learn Duck and Cover.
Sensible Few: Is risking the destruction of everything we're trying to protect worth it?
Government Technocrats: We can't look our children in the eye ... yadda yadda yadda.
Sure they can go to congress and push for increased funding or whatever for their top cases. Which gives congress a tangible budget number that could be "saved" by passing a law, but politics/congress doesn't really work this way - spending money benefits the administrating critters, the FBI, and the contractors doing the work.
Furthermore, $1M is essentially a small amount and obviously "worth it" for the major sensational events that they'd use to push through backdoors. So it seems they're actually giving up ground by having to move the argument to the urgency for backdoors in cases that aren't worth $1M.
I can see the argument playing for fiscal-primacy authoritarians who would take this as an example of government waste, but they'd already support government backdoors and I don't see this riling them up enough to be worth it.
It seems like a dead-end for propaganda purposes. What am I missing?
Maybe they're just trying to salt the earth so that their technical success in this case does not hinder them arguing for backdoors next time?
Since I can't read the article, from anyone that can, how did they come to that figure? Is that just the cost of the exploit or..?
Seriously, we need to just ban domains that do that (full paywall after 1st paragraph) - it's not really sharing any content with the community.
I'm sure these things work, but they also alienate customers sometimes. People have founded entire businesses on offering clearer pricing schemes.
"Oh look, this $2500 sofa is only $1899.99 right now. What a great deal!"
One experiment had respondents use the last two digits of their social security number as the initial price for a bottle of wine or other good. This completely-arbitrary price had a strong correlation with the price they were willing to pay for the item.
The effect is described in greater detail in Thinking, Fast and Slow
It is also crazy to think how relational it all is. I don't really need that extra $7 beer at the bar, "but who cares, we're having fun". Whereas paying $8 a month to the New York Times took me months and months to decide on because I wasn't used to paying for it, even though I'd been a reader for years.
It really is a mostly emotional decision.
I can imagine this as general purpose advice but this is no way to build a loyal base. There are some services that I have that I begrudgingly pay for because they price so aggressively that they extract nearly all of the value from my subscription, and then there are services that I'm actually happy to pay the bill because it's such good value. Guess which services I recommend to others, and which services I actively look for alternatives for?
Obviously the ability to pay quality journalists is a valuable cause, but it irks me that retaining a large percentage of customers/consumers, and the corresponding potential to make much more of a difference in the world, isn't also considered a mention-worthy aim in itself.
Got the opportunity to cure diseases but decides to play mind games for fun instead? In a position to bring awesome tech to the masses but prefers to market it as luxury item to a limited audience? Making lots of profits already but spends serious effort to drive the competitor out of business to earn even more as monopolist? ...good for you, "disruptor".
And no offence, but it's very unlikely your product or service is that unique that there's no viable alternatives out there. That don't waste everyone's time.
The problem with "do not talk about pricing" is that you're assuming your customers are idiots. There's nothing wrong with having a bunch of profitable idiots as customers, but that's not quite the target audience for a product like newspapers. The simple fact is that the cost of delivering volume to subscribers (one more subscriber) is so teeny tiny small that inflating the price more than a reasonable amount (when in fact you're losing advertising eyeballs) is what's not smart business. Companies that presume I'm an idiot don't get my business.
You cannot talk about pricing without talking about cost. Intelligent businesses are unafraid to be transparent with their variable costs (which for a digital-only newspaper are significantly less than for a print version); what trips prices is the bulky overhead fixed costs: CEO and executive management pay, benefits, and unnecessarily swanky office space.
Realtors are probably the best example of this IRL, operating in an industry that "doesn't want you to talk about pricing" (e.g. negotiated commission at an hourly rate, for example) ... just sign on the dotted line and let them abscond with all your equity in a lump sum payment.
Now that some of the crazyness of Internet Advertising has fallen by the wayside (lower CPCs == less crazyness), it becomes important to pay people who will research things, write eloquently about them, and convey the information you seek. I have really been enjoying Blendle and their model. Happy to pay for decent content, not willing to pay for content I don't read. A good mix.
I hope more publications buy into that model.
When you put multiple products/services in one store, that is when your products get to be next to both competing and non-competing (non directly substituable) products, there are other consumer feelings to add like the sum of all things they're going to buy -- whether or not they have a budget, the sum of the things will either look "cheap" or "expensive". And who knows what they will buy next... if they come back at all.
When did commerce get so bloody hard?
I learnt from running a part of a furniture chain's website that garbage is often placed with the item people want to move.
Retail I learnt is more about selling profit than selling product or services.
Pricing remains hard, and tricky, and several states like California have made it illegal to display MSRP type pricing, because everything's a great deal.
Existing paying customers? Why would you spend money to acquire customers that you've already acquired. You had your reasons for signing up for DO, and apparently, the lack of a $10 credit wasn't one of them. And we all know this is a flimsy firewall to breech anyway - a different e-mail address that - if you're really feeling saucy - you could have delivered to an SMTP daemon on your existing droplet.
Promotions are by definition a form of publicity or advertisement, and if you're already a customer, you're already a customer, know what I mean? Why advertise "hey, check us out" if you've already checked them out and signed on the dotted line.
If you feel really, really, really burned by this, do what other cost-conscious consumers do, and whenever you see a box "promo code" on a signup form, Google "example.com promo code" (substituting the actual domain name, obviously) and see what you can find.
I do not understand, even a little bit, the amount of outrage over the fact that you want a company to spend advertising money (that's what a promotion is budgeted to) to advertise to an existing customer. Not unless you feel that DO isn't worth it already, that is, and in that case, what the hell is $10 going to do to change your mind?
This type of promotion really aggravates me. I'm not just saying this only about the announced GitLab/DigitialOcean partnership, but rather as a general comment as I see this customer acquisition ruse quite a lot elsewhere too.
I spend money with DigitalOcean. I don't feel particularly rewarded for my loyalty when I can't enjoy the same promotion as some new customer, who may never spend another cent with DO.
"GitLab Runners do not offer secure isolation between projects that they do builds for. You are TRUSTING all GitLab users who can push code to project A, B or C to run shell scripts on the machine hosting runner X."
Seems like a very strong reason to use one's own paid DigitalOcean instances for runners instead of using the free shared runners, at least for commercial projects. I was wondering if anyone from GitLab could expand further on this?
We have a single giant whose products are used by the masses(Google/Uber/Github-in this sense) which had customer-focussed /domain-oriented paths but seem to have lost it midway, and then we have smaller/modular companies who are more focused to the domain improvement in itself (DDG,Lyft,Gitlab) who partner up with other specialised companies(Yandex/Didi Kaudi/DO) to remain customer-focussed /domain-oriented.
In the meantime the consumers get to choose between what the world chose and what could be a more sensible decision.
Wow, I hope that doesn't get abused and taken away.
Prior to this we were with CircleCI, and before that Travis CI.
In any case, we just had things like fuzzy logic, SVM's, primitive ANN's, and so on. I could describe and illustrate the patterns with ease but couldn't encode them into an algorithm for the life of me. That the modern tech created in the image set some of the same exact patterns my brain spotted is pretty amazing. The researchers also have a ton of training data to better illustrate NSFW and SFW. That they're throwing in lots of SFW is very smart as it's easier to bias this topic than most.
All I can say I keep up the good work. Been neat to see an insurmountable-on-Pentium2 problem get stomped by the CNN's. I still want to see them applied more to hunting source code defects, host forensics, and intrusions.
A classifier isn't human judgement by itself, and you need to be aware of how people view something in context. Good training images are also critical (one of the reasons why hell broke loose above were some people mastectomies were more likely to be censored than others)
Though I will admit I am very curious what happens if you throw a Robert Mapplethorpe at it.
Then everyone got censored, then the group got banned, then facebook got slammed by cancer groups and cut a deal with them to rehost cancer support groups as long as everyone stopped sharing mastectomies directly to facebook because Facebook could not specially moderate and alter feeds for those thinking about or dealing with prophylactic mastectomies. However, this issue still pops up ALL THE TIME for them on Instagram
The image has a surprising history. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna for the basics.
https://www.facebook.com/images/fb_icon_325x325.png is classified as "cross", "no person", "Resurrection", "spirituality", "symbol", "religion", "god".
In all seriousness, I found this pretty interesting, as I've been toying with using RNNs to classify NSFW images on my icon conversion site. The biggest issue that I've run into is that "icons" are squarely in a different class that photographic images. For some reason the *NN networks that I've toyed with break down on classifying icons because they aren't able to easily correlate a stylistic interpretation with a real item. It kind of makes sense given how they work, but there's got to be a way to work around it...
 EDIT: I did not find my original link, but here is a similar paper http://www8.cs.umu.se/education/examina/Rapporter/NaeemAshfa...
I don't think though that men can create neural nets that simulate the brain of woman ;-)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11530336 and marked it off-topic.
What about the roads themselves? I'm curious how an autonomous truck will handle a snow-covered highway, fog, potholes, and tight corners caused by narrow roads, bad parking, snow banks, etc. This is a way of life where I live (Boston area).
The article about the Russian driverless van (cited by @ommunist) talks with the experts, who are by no means 100% convinced this is "right around the corner": (1)
Industry players are aware that just one serious accident on the roads involving a driverless car could set back their development by decades.
Everyone has come to understand that the technology is 90 percent ready, but even when its 99.99 percent ready, it still wont be launched, says Gol, whose product is currently being tested in various scenarios and weather conditions.
Until we can teach [artificial] intelligence to learn the nuances of things that can occur unexpectedly on the roads what will happen if transparent glass is being carried across the road, what if theres a paper bag that the system perceives as a rock, the system isnt ready, he said.
We need a mathematical revolution to overcome that 0.01 percent, says Gol. We all understand perfectly that to have just one accident involving autonomous transport will have a huge fallout in society the technology could be closed down completely for another 50 years. Its a huge responsibility, he added.
We talk a lot about his job. It's not fun. He works long hours, a lot of it is mundane driving, and he sits idle a lot of the time.
I think he would be the first to agree that automation of his job is inevitable and likely necessary, given the dangers of truck driving. Hurling a multi-ton vehicle to and fro is a dangerous task at the best of times.
But therein lies the rub. We are just now reaching the point where we as a society are getting comfortable with automated cars. I think people will be less comfortable with the idea that the truck next to them has no human in it, and could experience some kind of glitch with catastrophic consequences. HN readers will understand that these cars are still a ways away, since the last 10% of the work required for true automation will take a lot longer to develop.
Trucks are way more complicated to drive. Once they're up to cruising speed, they're easy. But it's everything leading up to that point which is hard. Dealing with gear changes, airbrakes, load shifting, other vehicles that will inevitably cut you off, and much more.
And then when you get to your destination, manoeuvring a 50' trailer is no easy task, even for a trained driver like my dad.
It will happen, and it should happen. But it won't be easy, nor soon. Of course, I'd be happy to be wrong, and I'm sure my dad would be too.
No, consumers won't. The savings will be funneled directly to shareholders.
Is anyone working on driverless trains? If not, why not?I understand that the impact would be less huge, but at the same time the problem domain is arguably more tractable.In my hometown we have a fully automated underground train line which has been working flawlessly (i.e. no accidents) for almost 10 years now, but according to Wikipedia it looks like ATO (Automatic Train Operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation) is currently deployed only for urban transport, while proper railways, even the Japanese ones, seems to use only ATC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_control) which from what I understand provides support to a human driver but still needs one to operate.
Great. Now imagine trying to merge onto a highway, only to be cutoff by a long train of trucks blindly following each other, inches apart.
UPD: it appears Russians also have Gazelle for small business already driverless and capable to drive on Russian "roads" in rural regions. https://ninja.oximity.com/article/Russia-ready-for-driverles...
So, right around the corner except for billions in infrastructure investment.
I'm quite certain that this--like many other things related to autonomous vehicles--will happen. But they're decades further away than 75% solutions lead many people to think.
Now I'll go read the article.
The reason it is still carried on highways is because the highways are heavily subsidized while the railroads are not.
For example, most of the reason for expensive highway maintenance is the fatigue damage cause by trucks. Fatigue damage goes up as the cube of the weight, and the weight fees charged trucks don't remotely pay for it.
Awhile back there was a post about the early experience of a young and enthusiastic programmer. The take away phrase, in response to someone sending nonsense input, was "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
I can see assholes trying to make sure that an automated truck can't change lanes, or get to the exit it needs to reach, etc.
I myself have at times intentionally walked too close to the robotic carts that move supplies to workstations at my work, just to hear them stop and beep for a few seconds.
Maybe a surprise for the government as well, less tax revenue since the new drivers will drive in a more fuel efficient way, and probably require a smaller overall fleet (no need for sleep). Currently, an average truck pays ~$15k/year in road/registration/use taxes.
It's going to be a very visible adjustment for everyone.
This is literally more than 20% unemployment in less than 5 years.
Society will either crumble or completely change how it views unemployment.
For example, let's say they can only run during daylight hours, in conditions other than rain and snow, only on long-haul routes, and humans will do the "last-mile" piloting on local roads.
Now let's suppose that for routes that fit those parameters driverless trucks end up taking over 40% of those kinds of routes. That's huge. It would absolutely transform the economies of all the states that are looking for truck drivers here. http://media2.policymic.com/bf05a1c9e6b8a55095f8b4726e30b52f...
- Mitsubishi Motors: We did false mileage tests since 1991
- Toyota Unintended Acceleration and the Big Bowl of Spaghetti Code
- Volkswagon emissions scandal
On and on and on...
What to do with such an economy? Basic income. Tax the profits and give everyone sufficient income to pay for the basic necessities. That's one of the conclusions of the 2011 book Race Against The Machine, by two MIT professors.
He says, it's so ridiculous, how far away we are from automatting truck driving. There is a lot of manual work for loading and off-loading rigs. Plus there is driving in every single possible driving condition possible, around the world.
He said, he could see an auto-pilot system being installed in trucks in the next 10 years, but the rest is all manually done.
> We may also need dedicated lanes as slow-moving driverless trucks could be a hazard for drivers.
I wonder if the author realizes the amount of money this would take in the US. Even if the federal government put up the money to make this happen on interstates, each state would have to come up with the money for state roads. For most states, the transportation budget is a ongoing battle and I can't see tax payer money going to automated truck lanes any time soon.
My guess is that driverless trucks will only be 'a thing' in very urban areas over a short distance due to safety, maintenance, and financial concerns. Therefore, the long haul trucker will still have a job at the end of the day.
It's obviously possible techincaly (see cheap tablets), and from law POV (see seat belts requirement).
It would be useful (the device can have cheap black and white lcd screen and show "radar"-like view with cars ahead and behind).
It would also increase security even if there are no automated cars (overtaking tall cars will be much easier for one thing). Of course - if some cars don't use it - it's actaully decreasing security, so there needs to be adjustment period.
And when these things are in place - automated cars are much easier problem.
See related article and thread in  - article also discusses some startup ideas for mostly-autonomous systems.
"While self-driving is the name of the game, Highway Pilot isn't about letting those behind the wheel plonk their feet on the dashboard and snooze their way to their destination. Daimler likens the system to the autopilot used in aviation, in that the driver must be prepared to take control at any time." http://www.gizmag.com/daimlers-production-autonomous-truck-d...
That means public money. Something I don't see happening for a long time.
Video showing how the mining trucks operate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0RCSX95QmE 2012)
This has been a subject of long debate in India - autonomous cars are fairly useless in Indian cities. At the scale of transportation needed, nothing other than mass transportation (subways,etc) makes sense with last mile connectivity.
The same question exists for freight - should we construct trains or trucks? Taking into account offloading cost - which one is more efficient? I think people overestimate the complexity of shipping items with time guarantees. A hub and spoke model works great here - but what is doing the actual long haul?
And people don't understand the scale at which countries like India or China need to operate. The transportation needs of all of Europe are dwarfed by how much needs to be moved (quickly and economically ) in India.
This suggests each truck has one driver - the truck stops when the driver stops. Aren't there systems that let drivers pool/share trucks so the trucks can be on the road 24 hours a day?
They still had drivers in them, but the trucks were automated (it doesn't mention if the drivers had to override it at times or not).
If there is resentment against the ATs -- and that is just about a certainty -- there will be cases of resentful attendants shorting the fuel delivery, or even sabotaging trucks (water/sugar in the tank).
So, maybe the trucking companies hire min-wage attendants to work the pumps at designated stations along the routes. The stations that permit AT refueling would be obvious targets for Luddite retaliation.
Actually, the ATs themselves would be pretty obvious targets for vandalism. They would be easy to identify -- driving at 45mph in platoons, as described in the article -- and unprotected along the vast open stretches of US interstate highways. I would expect many, many ATs would arrive at their destinations with rifle bullet holes in them.
The level of deny is really... Annoying..
There are a number of issues with this. The biggest one is that there is already a solution to the long distance safe movement of goods with minimal human involvement.
It is called a t-r-a-i-n.
Trucking companies already use long distance trains as alternatives to long distance truckers. It is far cheaper and less technologically risky to simply increase the amount of long distance freight that moves via railroad.
With driverless trucks, :
* each truck needs complex (expensive) electronics that need to be kept repaired and up to date * regulatory hurdles * liability issues
What happens when a computer has a memory corruption issue and shuts down halfway across Nevada?
For driverless trucks to be a real thing, the very real competition from the railroad industry needs to be addressed.
Based on past history, the railroad industry is going to be reminding all the regulators of how dangerous trucking (and now unmanned trucks) can be --- and how safe and proven the railroad alternative is.
Sure, people want someone to blame for accidents. And people might not like the idea of cars without drivers, or worry about contrived "Does the car kill the driver or the pedestrian" situations. But at the end of the day, statistics is overwhelmingly on the side of driverless cars. Saying "Yes, but people aren't reasonable enough to see that" isn't helpful. The question is, how quickly can we get people to do what's best after the technology has been perfected?
For example, basic product choices like "every message highlights a room for attention" creates, for me, a feeling of "farmville for corporate communications." There's always another channel to click, another few sentences to read. This makes Slack very engaging at first, and makes it highly successful at lodging itself into organizations. And that's great, because Slack's a far sight better than email. But this rapid-fire feel encourages synchronous communications, and everyone quickly learns that @-mentions and DMs get quicker responses. That in turn leads to communicating with individuals instead of teams (or instead of searching issues, or Jira, or a wiki, or whatever). I don't think chat has to be this way; product decisions can encourage a more thoughtful question and answer flow.
I think that Chat may be like product management: the product opinions matter quite a bit, and teams have varying styles, so there's room in the market for several different products. Slack does a great job for a certain communication style, but it's not the only style out there. I hope some competing products with different opinions gain enough traction to keep them honest.
1. The best use of slack is the free edition which has limited history. Once this lack of history is made clear, people use it simply for online pings. Since notes, files and everything will disappear, people will automatically put the effort to put those things in the right tools (wiki, bug tracker etc).
2. Don't expect people to be online. It's the same as irc. If people are there, they are expecting to be interrupted / they are feeling helpful at that moment.
3. Integrations.. are a gimmick. There is really no value in knowing someone commented on some github issue instantly. Or someone committed something. Use integrations only for firefighting. But because of 2) use this carefull because you shouldn't expect anyone to be around. Paging/sms/email is best for this. After all, these are already used and it's not slack makes these obsolete.
- Fantastic product
- which genuinely helps people
- which has evolved and matured in an impeccable manner
- which has, as far as Im aware, never failed critically (no data loss or security breaches hell, they are so proactive that 1Password saves multiple DB backups for you just in case they eventually mess up)
- which sports good and native apps for all major platforms, including icky ones Im sure the founders dont prefer. (They have this in common with WhatsApp!)
- Helpful, knowledgeable, and quick support
- Didnt shut the company down after 2, 3, 4, or 10 years just because they werent on track to be a billion dollar company in the next few quarters
Whatever culture these guys have? Copy that.
I'm seeing this across numerous open source project communities, and it's really infuriating. B/c these communities are not paying Slack, they don't have access to archives, and of course it's all invisible to Google. So a valuable Q&A that might help thousands of people over many years were in on a public forum winds up helping...the handful of people who were in the channel on the day it happened.
> Slack forced me to evaluate things very fast and respond quickly, otherwise I would miss my opportunity to join a conversation before it moved onto something else.
> Then there was the fact that we had so many channels and direct messages and group chats. It multiplexed my brain and left me in a constant state of anxiety, feeling that I needed to always be on guard.
> And I had to read everything. I felt that I had no choice as often decisions would be made in Slack that I needed to know. And in other ways it was simply an addiction that needed to be fed.
Blaming the tool for this kind of behavior would be comical but for the fact that it's actually scary scary to see someone with this little self awareness. At least he got the "addiction" part right.
Reality check. My company of ~80 people uses Slack (sparingly) as a slightly better alternative to gchat/Skype. We have jira for issues and a wiki for persistent knowledge. No one here likes being interrupted or always being on guard for the next chance to participate in a conversation. So we just don't do it and Slack has yet to force us to.
Not once have I heard a colleague criticising Slack. Every startup I know is using it and praising it.
When I work with some people who still use email to coordinate in situations where I usually use Slack, I find it to be maddeningly time-wasting. Email is terrible for group conversation.
It strikes me that there must be some more general for the Slack criticism. Perhaps the hype cycle effect? Or the inevitable fact that at least some companies will use a tool ineffectively, given enough adoption?
To anyone who hasn't already used Slack - I'd recommend a trial, especially if your organisation has a culture of group discussion via email. I've found it to be an excellent tool, particularly when coordinating remotely.
If enough Slack interruptions happen, it will hopefully become clear that I just need to close the app in the midst of the pomodoro, only opening it on breaks, and even then only to triage to do items for future pomodoros. If not, then simply continue down that path.
The trick would be to get everyone to buy in to protecting their own time to focus. That requires a very disciplined culture indeed. One that values balancing people's ability to create with clearing other people's obstacles and above all else encourages every person to participate fully in the governance of their team.
Most of my Basecamp interactions come from the emails that are sent on every thread change. It almost seems to be a proxy between conversation and email, which is counterproductive to its goal.
The key issue in this article is about the lacking of separation of concerns in Slack. I may be missing something, but it seems to be diametrically opposed to Slack's "always-on" structure. I would argue that Basecamp tends to devalue workplace communication through impersonal Basecamp-templated emails which often hide the original sender and thus any sense of urgency that would otherwise be generated. We have so many fantastic tools, but often email seems to be the unsung, yet essential, hopper for all of our notifications. For workplace communication and general project discussion, just email (under the right direction and guidelines - along with supplemental direct chat) strikes the perfect balance between urgency (or lack thereof), the ability to compartmentalize, and personal touch, without interfering directly with work by breaking concentration.
You need to live mainly in one channel (the equivalent of the physical open office), and go to the other channels when called in, or when you have a bit of down time to check what's going on there. Like the buildings where we used to work, you do not need to visit every room.
Chat, group chat, video conferencing are nothing special. These applications are commodities and included with so many other apps. Eg. if you use Google Apps/Mail you get the fantastic Hangout for free, working on all devices.
Moreover, every time I login Slack it feels so crowded. If you want to change something you have to navigate through a forest of settings here and there.
Finally, chatting and being messaged is the best thing to get out of flow and to get ADD. Messaging is great, group messaging too but use it rather for important stuff.
If you don't have threading, you lose the one best feature of those new chat solutions, the single advantage they have over decades-old IRC: conversations at least slightly detached from time. On Slack, you have to be there all the time in order not to miss things or to participate in just about any conversation. If you aren't, soon it will be too late and no one will know what you're replying to.
As for other advantages, I noticed that one of the biggest uses is file exchange. If there was another simple way to just drag&drop a file somewhere and have people access it, those chat apps would see less use. But there isn't.
I haven't seen the bad effects in our company. Perhaps they occur at larger company sizes.
I worked at a large company where seemingly every day we would get several "someone has left the lights on in their blue Honda" type emails sent to everyone in the company.
Thankfully now I work in a small one without a carpark.
E.g. if there are decisions made without you, let them. Offline there are also many conversations and decisions you are not a part of just because you were so unlucky that you haven't been there at the time. But in an offline or private-chat conversation you can't look up afterwards what each person said exactly, you have to rely on hear-say. So in fact if you accept that decisions are made without your participation (it's called "trust in your team") then using a good chat tool is an advantage.
E.g. 2: People don't use your QnA software or wiki and instead use chat. Maybe instead of convincing them to use the other tools you can learn and teach others how to use the search function of the chat efficiently. You may find that you don't need a QnA software when all the questions and answers are searchable in the chat software. Here you can safe the cost (money, admin, learning time for new guys) of one software.
E.g.3: You want tickets and tickets are really important to link activity like commits. I'm not sure but I would assume that it's possible to find a chatbot which creates tickets for you from your chattool, writes comments to them and gives you back the ticket-id to use it in your commits. Then you also have a kind of log for how a discussion and the creation of a ticket where interlinked with each other, because you see the 'hubot create ticket "debug problem"' in the middle of a conversation happening. More context for free.
To change others the first thing we need to do is change us, and that is admittedly even harder.
This is where the article lost me. How are Slack notifications different from those in other services? I'm just not getting it.
To me, this is an example of somebody wanting to love something.
The constant policing they mention at the end was probably enough overhead for them to consider alternatives, though I don't understand what they mean with this quote: "Furthermore, Slack was not designed for the deep, meaningful conversations that are needed to move 1Password forward."
On the surface, it sounds like a people/culture problem, but I'm sure there were other factors at AgileBits that contributed.
And even if we had been successful in changing peoples behaviour, the lack of threading made it very difficult to have meaningful, deep conversations about complex subjects anyway. Before you could even fully understand the problem being discussed (let alone find a solution), someone would invariably start a new conversation or reply to a previous discussion that happened earlier in the channel.
Threaded, asynchronous discussions with notifications when someone actually replied to your message are much more useful.
And they can also be freaking decentralized and end-to-end encrypted! Woot!
I am building something like this. Anything like that exist?
It's also, you know, private.
> When someone would report an issue in Slack, wed point out the appropriate JIRA or GitHub project where that should be reported.
This got me thinking: Part of the problem is that the attention of others is a commons -- a vast wealth that we each have an interest in extracting from, but which takes a toll collectively.
Perhaps there's a way to internalize for a "consumer of attention" their attention-cost externality. So if certain people are extracting too much from the commons in the form of "@person" and "@everyone/@channel" messages, perhaps a bot could randomly ping them with noise messages in proportion to their attention-grabbing actions, to make them feel some of that pain and adjust accordingly without policing :)
Biggest complain for me is that the Slack UI gives too much weight on the fact that someone has talked on a channel. This makes me feel like I should be reading that, even though it might not have anything to do with me. This creates a whack-a-mole situation where I end up constantly jumping between all channels so that I wont miss anything.
Another thing that I really liked on Flowdock was that discussions had separate threads. Especially on channels that weren't your main focus but instead you were invited to in order to discuss some specific thing you could follow just the discussion about that thing and everything else can be filtered away. This also makes it easy to know what any comment is about, since you can easily read the whole discussion thread without having to skim through the whole channel. This works great even if the messages have days or weeks between them. (Instead of having just the direct mention as a point of interest you end up following the thread that you were mentioned on and you might keep following it for longer time, even after the highlight is weeks old)
There was a major annoyance with Flowdock as well. At least when I was using it there wasn't a search that covered all channels. You had to either know what channel the thing you were searching on had happened or you had to one by one go through all channels and do a search on each one of them separately.
Main point here is that Slack fails to keep my attention on the things that are relevant to me and instead seems to suggest that everything is critical to me. This makes it feel like addiction instead of a tool that would be useful all the time.
I have not worked with these, but did try Sococo briefly. The way this would work in slack is you could opt-in to voice on a certain channel for collaboration intensive work. Might be a horrible idea I'm not sure.
I guess you could use /call this way? Hmmm... didn't think of that.
The solution to this guy's problems are to chill out.
The problem isn't the tool. The problem is people. Giving people more and better ways to communicate creates more noise, not necessarily more signal.
Constraining communication to channels that only allow signal feels bureaucratic (complete form 31/b to request new business cards and send to purchasing no later than the second week of the month).
There's a happy medium (pun intended) somewhere between the two.
Slack/chat communication, instant, receiver feels overwhelmed.
The problem is not email or slack, it's the method in which we communicate. We need to make sure we use the right tools, as the author mentioned, knowledge bases, email, chat etc at the appropriate times.
The problem is not Slack per say, it's using Slack for all communications.
If someone has to send me an IM to get an answer to something about our product, and I can't link the answer to them by just searching our wiki (or documentation if it's user-visible), then I file a note to add it.
I haven't ever felt the need to berate someone for asking me about easy to find information, because someone who isn't at least slightly embarrassed to have their question answered by a link to a resource they could have found on their own in under 30 seconds is probably going to have enough problems in other areas.
Email could handle much more automation, and be friendlier to on-demand inclusion in discussion threads, but AFAIK, it doesn't support a standard way to provide:
1. End-user controlled behaviour.
2. Whole-thread forwarding initiated by the end-user.
#1 would require a way to allow stantard plugins to be written, either by sysadmin or end-users. (Obviously, the capability and authorization of each would be different. End-user ones would only be allowed to touch end-user own emails.)
#2 would allow easier evolution of email threads.
I'm not talking about proprietary extensions to a particular SMTP implementation. I'm talking a standardized protocol addition to support these scenarios.
Am I missing something? Were changes to SMTP ever attempted?
I think Dave (the author and founder of 1password) is feeling the same thing I'm feeling as a CEO. It's a kind of weird anxiety that creeps up on you as the company scales and you feel like you're always-on from the moment you open your eyes to the moment you close them at night. I think it's a symptom of a virtual office and team. A real office on the other hand would provide that very real sense of driving home in the evening that gives you a very solid separation from work, the team, the opportunities and the issues.
To be clear: I'll never go back to a physical office, both for my own benefit and that of my team's.
I became aware of this problem with being always-on recently. I also started giving rather short unvarnished answers to questions on Slack and I realized something had changed. I've put it down to having no sense of quiet time. I don't mean not having any 'quiet time' but having no 'sense of quiet time' because someone might have messaged me. So even if I set myself to away, I'm still checking in just in case I dropped the ball because someone is waiting for a reply.
I've changed two things so far to try and fix this:
- Taking long walks (in addition to my regular bike rides) with Slack off. - I still code, so I turn Slack off and set my alarm for 1.5 hours from now or whenever I need to be back on. Then turn Slack off.
Things I'm considering:
- Banning Slack after a certain time at night (for me personally). Perhaps 8pm. - Banning Slack for myself until I'm "on" in the mornings.
Being a remote team I see Slack as absolutely essential and I don't think we could do without it. We are very productive via slack and we share music, jokes, news, ideas for blog posts and many other things via Slack. We also do our voice calls via Slack and we don't use video on purpose because it's distracting. So for us, Slack won't go away any time soon. I think if you can manage it, it's an amazing team platform.
On a broader note: I think digital addiction is a real problem. I think it's subtle and it involves checking the same thing more than 20 times a day in a non-productive obsessive way. Think Facebook, Reddit, Hacker News, hitting refresh on a SaaS thing that gives you a quick endorphin or adrenaline rush and of course Slack. I think the symptoms are subtle, the behavior is widely accepted as normal and it's destructive in several ways.
So I think it's important to develop a discipline that allows us to exist online safely, productively and in good health. I think what this discipline is is just beginning to emerge in our culture because the problem of digital addiction and being always-on is only beginning to be recognized.
Also it is completely unacceptable to call this checking a tool beyond your shift/work a culture and it is indeed a bad practice setup by lead/ceo to keep everyone working all the time. The companies pay you for your time, so unless u get paid extra allowance to check these tools after hours please do not do it. For emergencies situation let people SMS and if no response in 15 minutes then call and that too have roaster who will be on call in which week or month.
It is a job of the leader/manager to ensure people have work life balance and they should setup internal polices and procedure to ensure people don't get to appreciate the one who is always on rather the ones who contribute with in the work hours. The management should make a culture of people talking about it so that it does not become forceful as people start doing this always on and others fear that they would be considered contributing less if they don't be online hence everyone stays on line for no reason.
For a company like 1Password there is absolutely no reason to be online all the time except for the support folks(and they too with in thier shift and have enough people to cover 24/7) and dev's can be engaged on call as required. All they need is setup couple of core hours every body is online to communicate and status update. Even geo diverse teams you can have core hours that ensure everyone is online for about 1 hour or 2 at the same for each team , if it is absolutely necessary.
I wish startup ceo's understand this and account that 8 hours a day is what person can reasonably put in work and if you need more hours it is going to cost business and that is part of the budgeting process. If you can't afford that then you are not yet ready to start the startup or do it it yourself. For god sake it is 21st century and if you are going to change the world first change your mindset and change the your company and make it a first class and make it 22nd century company where employees are not exploited because they can be(in the name passion, happiness, blah blah blah).
I don't get it, and I'm concerned about the following:
1. proprietary service with no interoperability and high potential for loss of records
2. important technical details/arguments hidden in a chat log and not made part of a ticket/commit/comment
3. removal of async communication leading to more interruptions and less async emails one has thought about before responding
4. teams boasting the use of 10 or more channels
There are other issues with relying solely on Slack and killing off email, but these are the most important ones that always come up when I'm confronted with a Slack-only team.
I've had the same issue with IRC, so it's not my kind of communication medium to monitor 24/7, whereas I love bulk responding to emails and often ponder about a response for a while.
If there's something urgent, one picks up the phone, and usually one thinks twice before calling (interrupting) someone.
Using proper email threads, ticket discussions, etc. give you an electronic trail of the technical decision, and that's also why Fossil's inclusion of a distributed ticket system is such a great idea. Two years later, you can easily inspect how the code evolved and why it did in a certain way.
How do dev teams cope with Slack? I couldn't work without async email and use real time communications (text or voice) only on demand, in order to limit interruptions.
IRC for chitchat / asking questions (PMs and highlights so there's no immediate need to respond)
Jitsi / IRC for meetings or small team collaboration.
Jira for bugs
Wiki for documenting design decisions and future work
... Why. Why would anyone (not maliciously) consider this desirable behaviour?
Unfortunately "let the user decide" is not the best answer if you want to link to something like "terms and conditions" in the middle of a sign up flow or something. If the user doesn't know how to open it in a new tab on their own, this can be extremely frustrating I'd imagine.
Not my problem anymore, but I never even considered this.
EDIT: 2013 to be exact.
It could be worth checking out if you want to avoid experiencing this security issue yourself (but I offer no warranties) or if you want to see if it would break any site you visit if browsers would enable the behavior by default.
As the browser I use, Opera 12, also treats all links manually opened in the new tab as if they had target="_blank", giving them opener access, I decided to remove the window.opener altogether by replacing the "opener" string with "opera" in the opera.dll. This way it gets overwritten by the normal window.opera variable and is essentially hidden. So far I haven't encountered a site legitimately relying on this behavior.
I've found that as time goes on, people are far more concerned with doing things by the book, projecting an image, etc. rather than just 'being', enjoying life in the moment, doing things just because.
I've certainly been guilty of this to some extent because it seems impossible to avoid.
Personal anecdote: At age 16 it was fun to hang around at a bus stop or street corner or whatever and just chat bollocks. Move forward a bit and in college we'd hang out in someone's dorm room or flat or equivalent.
Now everyone is off at work, spaced out all over the place. You might be able to get one or two people to do something, but it'll probably mean some sort of sanitized commercial experience (go and get pizza at a restaurant, pay to commute there, pay to commute back, etc).
And it's all because we've sort of decided that working all the time is more important than being social.
I think that's sad. I often wonder if it's how we end up with such warped political environments. No-one just relaxes, any more, it's all 40 hour weeks and 'scheduling appointments' months into the future.
You grow up, and what were 20 kids, become a banker, a lawyer, a janitor, a policeman, a nurse, a dropout, a homeless guy, and so on. And it just doesn't work, because of all these rules we've made up, status games, location, whatever. Why can't we just go to the park again?
And no, this isn't just about childhood friends moving away. It's the same story up and down the scale, in my experience. Everyone is busy, everyone is pushing.
The community takes a back seat to economic needs, it seems. Something like that. I'm not sure. I know we still got stuff done back then, I have a bit of paper with a hologram on it that proves it. But it wasn't all consuming, somehow.
Therein lies the rub. Having friends makes you happier, as long as your friends are intellectually stimulating.
I've been trying desperately for years to make some intellectually stimulating friendships, and it's quite difficult.
In part, I think, because I am a generalist, and most smart people are specialists. As a result, I don't run in the same circles as they do.
When I do make a friend who is smart, chances are they will end up moving across country for a new job, or will disappear into their research, and I'm back at square one.
Are there any other generalists who have trouble making friends with other smart people, because they all seem to be specialists?
Do you have any advice for generalists in need of smart friends?
I currently live in an area where I find it somewhat difficult to make new friends, and I'm not entirely sure why that's the case. Generally speaking, the people where I live are more interested in football/beer than technology/startups, but I actually don't think that is the reason for my difficulty I am good friends with some football fanatics, and there are some technically-minded people who I can't stand. (And I certainly don't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with football and beer I merely point out that these are not interests of mine!)
Honestly, I can't quite figure out what causes me to mesh well with some people and not others. I get along great with my girlfriend and my sister, and I can talk to them for hours even though neither is interested in science or technology.
And I don't think it's morals/values either I'm friends with people whose political views are completely opposed to my own.
If someone can figure out what actually causes people to "click" with one another, then I think a startup for making friends might actually be successful.
Of course you would need something to hack on and I figured a wall of various embedded systems connected together in various ways so that you would have write code on the outer ones to talk to the inner ones etc.
What we got though were maker spaces, which when they work have a pretty cool vibe but sometimes it's like hanging out with a bunch of ghosts or something. All going about their business, not joining in or starting conversations etc. That was why I thought an ice breaker type activity like the wall of systems would be an interesting idea. Sort of like putting a puzzle out on the table at a dinner party. A safe reason to be hanging out.
Some day I keep thinking I'll build something like that.
It's not just me of course, even my very friendly wife notices dwindling friendships despite putting a lot of energy into keeping them going. We often ask each other "why is that?", but so far neither of us has a clue.
The circle diminishes gradually, incrementally, the loss is one by one. Friends known for decades die, develop dementia, or move two thousand miles away to be near family.
Friends are people and don't always change for the better. It's puzzling and painful when long-standing friends grow "weird" and unfriendly. It happens, no way to explain it, no known illness or infirmity removes them, just another kind of loss to grasp.
Losses of such kinda are truly irreplaceable. Sure making new friends is wonderful and necessary but never quite the same. Thankfully a few stalwart friends are still around.
Experts all agree having more friends is better, thing is, starting new friendships is a constant and steep challenge in later life. We find opportunity is sparse, contemporaries hesitant to take up the offer, or distracted by a plethora of family, health, and economic demands. The experts aren't saying how to solve these issues.
If there is a key it must be the willingness to be persistent, not give up the effort to enrich the network of connectedness. Here and there people do respond, and a relationship slowly begins to form.
I've made more new friends in the last 3 years since I moved to SF than, I'd honestly say, my previous decade living in NYC. I'm 37 now and feel like I have more of a community than in college.
I think the key to finding real friends and friendships is to be in a place where you're going to be surrounded by the kind of people you WANT to be friends with. It doesn't involve over-thinking or forcing it: I'm a 30-something dude who loves tech and being outside. There are a LOT of people like that in SF. I figured that out within a week of visiting 3 years ago, so I moved here.
Say what you will about monoculture, but it sure made it easy and fun to find a community of people I liked (and vice versa).
This helped me understand a few things. We all have childhood friends that once made sense but now if we met these people we wouldn't become friends. That's the exception to above rule, and i'm sure there are a few others, but generally that is a good way to understand why a friendship is working or ceases to be useful. It's something you can also use to acquire new friends or improve existing relationships. The value you offer may be as simple as being available (i.e. available to go out to meet possible romantic interests, available to pursue a new hobby together, available to blow off steam after work), actually listening and offering advice (advice part only works if the person looks up to you on a given subject and asks for it, unsolicited advice is the worst), being positive and seeking/seeing positivity in every situation/person (i've had friends that really helped me realize that people are in different stages of their life even when they seem obnoxious there's probably a good reason for it at the time so we shouldn't be quick to criticize and it's mostly a waste of time anyway). Most people don't actually think about this or put any effort into improving their value proposition but you'd be surprised how much difference that can make.
Does anyone have a link to this so called study? Funny how in academia you are required to reference everything but when it comes to journalism anything goes.
Please ignore my request, I had a temporary brain fart, a Google search helped me find it.
Our lizard brains aggressively pre-filter potential friends by estimating expected value add. One property that contributes to perceived value is scarcity, and this leads to a sort of counterintuitive result: it may be easier to make friends if you don't really want or need them (or at least you appear that way). If you are self-reliant, happy, and occupied most of the time, your time and attention are scarce (from the perspective of others). This signals value and makes others want to be your friend. Obviously, this doesn't mean you should be constantly unavailable. But it does mean that being constantly available to hang out, talk, do favors, etc. will probably make you less desirable as a friend.
I've been thinking recently about why I am this way...and I believe it is down to 1) listening carefully to what people have to say, 2) being happy and calm, it is just my nature, I am quiet but I am always looking for something to laugh about. I like to crack little jokes and I appreciate humor in every situation, 3) being un-judgmental and kind.
Anyway i'm not sure what my point really is, except that you CAN make friends as you get older! It is not all doom and gloom :)
Stephen Wolfram (mathematica fame) did a deep dive into the numbers and there are quite a bit of interesting insight..
I have a much better social life now than I did when I was younger. Younger was lots of sort-of-friends, who I didn't really like, based on convenience/availability.
I have far fewer friends now, but I've known many of them 10+ years and like them much more than my childhood friends.
I would be interested in science of making them.
Or even a more analytical approach other than kinda obvious stuff.
Girls thought I was shy.
I thought nothing, only that my model of human beings was right: people prefer 100 bouquet of one rose then 1 bouquet of 100 roses.
Since then, I stopped using bots even though it was successful and I prefered to learn from the bots : just be considerate, and even if you don't think of it consciously, because you may come back to where you were, you might influence positively people's opinion. Even cats and animals comes to me on a regular basis now (probably uncorrelated, but who knows?)
Being polite and considerate does not always mean being lowering your eyes when you see a bully :)
Since then, I make friends slower, but with more quality. and since my "turn over" in friendship is low, I kind of do not mind having enough time to share quality time with them.
Beyond the reliability issue I find it particularly hard to find highly intelligent friends. Most of my intellectual stimulation comes from my work but sometimes I find I want more. Many of the people I meet who are intelligent and in my field are socially inept. They can be intellectualy stimulating but deeper friendship is difficult.
I haven't read the science but I'm a bit skeptical about the claims. As an introvert I'm often uncomfortable in mid-size+ social gatherings and need to recharge afterwards (with a good book for example). The article claims health benefits form having friends and seems to imply that making more friends is the way to go. I very much prefer deepening existing friendships. Being around very good friends is sometimes exhausting as well. I'd be very interested if the claimed health benefits have been tested on groups that were split into intorverted/extroverted. I often feel like these "self help by making more friends" articles are very biased towards the extroverted mode of living.
Key takeaways: (well, don't have time to write this out today, sorry)
It feels awkward without the pauses though. If internally we need change - (WE do.) Change comes from within. - we need to make sure we aren't running on the same programming. Responding instantly and avooding pauses is not a new experience...
OKCupid used to make the same mistake in their blog entries analyzing their message traffic. An ad that gets more responses must be better, right? Well, no. Getting one response from the right person is better than twenty responses that you are completely uninterested in.
There is one case where I watched some guy's dog for a weekend, took someone else's boat into the ocean to save him when his engine died, helped him move all this uncles' stuff after the uncle committed suicide, go drinking with him downtown even though I didn't want to go out, ect.. I moved into a new apartment and needed help putting up new blinds. He kept making excuses to not help me even though he is a contractor. From now on, I don't help other people. I work, make money, and if I need help, I'll pay a stranger. I'm fine with that.
I've grown convinced it is a myth that we need friends.
RFS on Jamaica at 10: " The very occasional physical attacks on journalists must be offset against this, but no serious act of violence or threat to media freedom has been reported since February 2009, a month that saw two cases of abuse of authority by the Kingston police."
Or even Ireland at 9: "... defamation lawsuits are common. Finally, interviewing police sources has been virtually impossible since the Garda Siochana Act of 2005, which bans police officers from talking to journalists without prior authorization."
Not a little biased are we? Amnesty for murdering journalists isnt my idea of freedom of the press, nor are defamation law suits, or a prohibition against interviewing the police.
The ranking for Slovakia at 12 seems at odds with its description "Defamation is punishable by up to eight years in prison, the harshest penalty for this offence in the European Union. Many legal actions have been brought by businessmen, politicians and judicial officials. Prime Minister Robert Fico initiated several during his first term. Censorship was tightened in 2014 by the adoption of a regulation limiting the number of journalists with parliamentary accreditation, restricting their movements within the parliament and banning them from photographing the personal property of parliamentarians."
Without a free press & whistleblowers democracy cannot function.
It is clear from the last five years of leaks that elected governements around the world feel they must act in secret because they suspect the electorate would not approve.
Without much more oversight this will worsen.
Free Chelsea Manning. Pardon Edward Snowden. Drop the inditement against Julian Assange. Offer sanctuary to Mossack Fonesca's whistleblower. Lead by example.
Surprising to see that Singapore is at 154 and there is Eritrea below North Korea.
I am starting to think of them as just another irresponsible NGO.
Also, going through the methodology, I couldn't figure out which Indian languages are included in the survey, so, its quite possible that a major chunk of the Indian media was left out from the survey just because the translations were only in Hindi (thats my assumption).
It partly looks like political maneuvering to get more question time in them. I wonder how other countries do it. I heard there are "first question rights" and "first rows" in the US also, so old hands like Helen Thomas had advantage.
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
Note this article is from 2012.
1. What factors were used in deriving this list?
2. Who funds this project?
I can't find it anywhere on their site.
Protocol Buffers (and I think Thrift, and maybe Avro) are sort of like C or C++: you declare your types ahead of time, and then you take some binary payload and "cast" it (parse it actually) into your predefined type. If those bytes weren't actually serialized as that type, you'll get garbage. On the plus side, the fact that you declared your types statically means that you get lots of useful compile-time checking and everything is really efficient. It's also nice because you can use the schema file (ie. .proto files) to declare your schema formally and document everything.
I think this is a case where "strongly typed" isn't the clearest way to think about it. It's "statically typed" vs. "dynamically typed" that is the useful distinction.
Some of the benefits over JSON:
* Real date type
* Real binary type - no need to base64 encode
* Real decimal type - invaluable when working with currency
* Annotations - You can tag an Ion field in a map with an annotation that says, e.g. its compression ("csv", "snappy") or its serialized type ('com.example.Foo').
* Text and binary format
* Symbol tables - this is like automated jsonpack.
* It's self-describing - meaning, unlike Avro, you don't need the schema ahead of time to read or write the data.
There is no need to have a null which is fragmented into null.timestamp, null.string and whatever. It will complicate processing. Just because you know the type of some element is timestamp, you must worry whether or not it is null and what that means.
There should be just one null value, which is its own type. A given datum is either permitted to be null OR something else like a string. Or it isn't; it is expected to be a string, which is distinct from the null value; no string is a null value.
It's good to have a read notation for a timestamp, but it's not an elementary type; a timestamp is clearly an aggregate and should be understood as corresponding to some structure type. A timestamp should be expressible using that structure, not only as a special token.
This monstrosity is not exhibiting good typing; it is not good static typing, and not good dynamic typing either. Under static typing we can have some "maybe" type instead of null.string: in some representations we definitely have a string. In some other places we have a "maybe string", a derived type which gives us the possibility that a string is there, or isn't. Under dynamic typing, we can superimpose objects of different type in the same places; we don't need a null version of string since we can have "the" one and only null object there.
This looks like it was invented by people who live and breathe Java and do not know any other way of structuring data. Java uses statically typed references to dynamic objects, and each such reference type has a null in its domain so that "object not there" can be represented. But just because you're working on a reference implementation in such a language doesn't mean you cannot transcend the semantics of the implementation language. If you want to propose some broad interoperability standard, you practically must.
They both have self-describing schemas, support for binary values, JSON-interoperability, basic type systems (Ion seems to support a few more field types), field annotations, support for schema evolution, code generation not necessary, etc.
I think Avro has the additional advantages of being production-tested in many different companies, a fully-JSON schema, support for many languages, RPC baked into the spec, and solid performance numbers found across the web.
I can't really see why I'd prefer Ion. It looks like an excellent piece of software with plenty of tests, no doubt, but I think I could do without "clobs", "sexprs", and "symbols" at this level of representation, and it might actually be better if I do. Am I missing something?
Several years ago, I wouldn't have imagined this possible and I'm a little bummed that I left before it happened.
Like leef said above, I'm glad to have Ion as an option again.
And where does Ion fit here?
Any character may be escaped. If the character is in the Basic Multilingual Plane (U+0000 through U+FFFF), then it may be represented as a six-character sequence: a reverse solidus, followed by the lowercase letter u, followed by four hexadecimal digits that encode the character's code point. The hexadecimal letters A though F can be upper or lowercase. So, for example, a string containing only a single reverse solidus character may be represented as "\u005C". [ snip ] To escape an extended character that is not in the Basic Multilingual Plane, the character is represented as a twelve-character sequence, encoding the UTF-16 surrogate pair. So, for example, a string containing only the G clef character (U+1D11E) may be represented as "\uD834\uDD1E".
U+HHHH\uHHHH4-digit hexadecimal Unicode code point
Looking at the code, it looks like the above JSON will parse:
1. Main parsing of \u here: https://github.com/amznlabs/ion-java/blob/1ca3cbe249848517fc6d91394bb493383d69eb61/src/software/amazon/ion/impl/IonReaderTextRawTokensX.java#L2429-L2434 2. which is called from here, and just appended to a StringBuilder: https://github.com/amznlabs/ion-java/blob/1ca3cbe249848517fc6d91394bb493383d69eb61/src/software/amazon/ion/impl/IonReaderTextRawTokensX.java#L1975
This is just one of those things that the first time I saw it in JSON/JS a part of my brain melted. This is all a technicality, of course, and most JSON values should work just fine.
No need for a new protocol when doing it that way for basic things, if you need more binary (busy messaging/real-time) there are plenty of alternatives to JSON.
I love the simplicity of JSON, so do others and it is successful so many try to attach on to that success. The success part was that it was so damn simple though, most attachments just complicate and add verbosity, echoes back to XML and SOAP wars which spawned the plain and simple JSON. Adding complexity is easy and anyone can do it, good engineers take complexity and make it simple, that is damn difficult.
What? This means their "arbitrary-precision decimals" are actually isomorphic to (Rational x Natural).
So now not only do we have the problem of redundant and mutually incompatible protocols (cue obligatory xkcd), but that we have so many such protocols that name collision is becoming an extra problem.
This really looks like a NIH specification.
- IonValues are mutable by default. I saw bugs where cached IonValues were accidentally changed, which is easy to do: IonSequence.extract clears the sequence , adding an IonValue to a container mutates the value (!) , etc.
- IonValues are not thread-safe . You can call makeReadOnly() to make them immutable, but then you'll be calling clone since doing anything useful (like adding it to a list) will need to mutate the value. While it says IonValues are not even thread-safe for reading, I believe this is not strictly true. There was an internal implementation that would lazily materialize values on read, but it doesn't look like it's included in the open source version.
- IonStruct can have multiple fields with the same name, which means it can't implement Map. I've never seen anyone use this (mis)feature in practice, and I don't know where it would be useful.
- Since IonStruct can't implement Map, you don't get the Java 8 default methods like forEach, getOrDefault, etc.
- IonStruct doesn't implement keySet, values, spliterator, or stream, and thus doesn't play well with the Java 8 Stream API.
- Calling get(fieldName) on an IonStruct returns null if the field isn't present. But the value might also be there and be null, so you end up having to do a null check AND call isNullValue(). I'm not convinced it's a worthwhile distinction, and would have preferred a single way of doing it. You can already call containsKey to check for the presence of a field.
- In practice most code that dealt with Ion was nearly as tedious and verbose as pulling values out of an old-school JSONObject. Every project seemed to have a slightly different IonUtils class for doing mundane things like pulling values out of structs, doing all the null checks, casting, etc. There was some kind of adapter for Jackson that would allow you to deserialize to a POJO, but it didn't seem like it was widely used.
Why not "com.amazon.ion", like thousands of other existing packages?