Mars was formed around the time Earth was, but it was blessed with only 11% of Earth's mass and less than 40% of Earth's gravity field. Shortly after cooling solid, its "Noachian Era" was similar to proto-earth: warm, a thick atmosphere, plenty of liquid water on the surface, and probably a significant magnetic field.
But this era was still during the era of the Late Heavy Bombardment, a time in which the last dregs of the solar system were still settling out. Large asteroids still pounded the planets with regularity.
Unlike Earth, Mars had trouble maintaining its liquid iron magnetic field. Since it's much smaller, it cooled and thus congealed faster. And there's growing evidence that asteroid impacts were able to drive enough heat beneath the surface that interior convection was quelled, leading to a fragmented magnetic field.
Without an adequate magnetic field to deflect solar wind, the atmosphere was prone to shedding off pieces of itself into space. This was amplified by the lower gravity which meant holding on to lightweight gasses was even harder.
Over time, Mars cooled to the point where the major forms of tectonics ceased. The water locked up beneath the ground, rusted out pulverized basalt dust from the asteroid impacts, and frizzled in the radiation-baked atmosphere, floating off.
The seas and lakes dried, the rain stopped, and that... was that.
Three billion years later, we arrive on the scene and find out we have a little sibling. Then we send robots. We hope to find life, or evidence that it once lived. Characterizing how water worked in the Martian past is a part of answering that question.
The story of Mars in short: flop planet, can't hydrosphere.
There is extremely strong evidence that in the very early years Mars was capable of holding on to a great deal of water: Enough to cover the Southern Hemisphere. The streambed seen here is from that time.
That downer is that this was over 3 billion years ago. Through a variety of processes and for a number of reasons most of Mars' water was lost to space or trapped underground.
The billion-dollar question that would be epic to answer: Did Mars develop Or acquire life during the time it had liquid water on the surface and if so is there any trace of it left, alive or dead?
Why isn't this front page, the implications are staggering.
The cemented section on the mars side is in itself most interesting I find and yet seem unable to state why. Wonderous stuff indeed.
Out of interest, how do we know it was water, and not some other liquid?
My mind is teeming with excitement of the possibilities, is anyone else as excited as me?
Mode 7 was the SNES graphics mode that allowed for things like rotating and zooming a background layer - used for things like the track in Mario Kart and F-Zero, or the worldmap in Final Fantasy 6 (while you're in the airship). The Scroll Register was used for scrolling in Mode 7.
H-Blank is the horizontal blanking period (and associated interrupt) - a time period between the drawing of scanlines on the screen (there's also V-blank, between frames). Changes made during H-Blank could make for some interesting effects - it was used for things like the circle that closes around Mario at the end of a level of Super Mario World: The rectangle draw routine is used, but the size of the rectangle is changed between scanlines, creating a circle. I'd imagine this was used for some of the wavy distortion effects in games like Chrono Trigger and Earthbound as well.
There is a long line of coders who grew up playing games that want to do that into adulthood, leading to a perverse supply/demand ratio that allows studios to treat their employees like crap under the auspices of "that's how the industry works". I wouldn't buy into it.
How many times in the history of computing has a team seen a faked demo, believed it, and cloned it, unwittingly becoming the first ones to do it for real? The fact that there are several such stories is really quite amazing.
> As every game developer knows, release dates are slippery, but the dates of trade shows are set in stone. If a game studio has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare booth space, purchase long-lead print advertising and arrange press appointments, the development team is going to have to demo something or heads will roll.
It's crazy to think about how much money and resources were wasted, not to mention destructive pressure created, by these contrived schedules of publicity dates. Getting publicity today is not as simple as making a webpage and twitter account, but at least it's not how it was in the OP's day
It is interesting to hear that this was not always the case. As graphics have gotten better, storage has gotten cheaper, and budgets have gone way up, studios can't just pump-and-dump franchise cash-ins and casuals quite like they used to (with the exception of smartphone titles). ION Storm did Blizzard a great favor by wounding their pride and motivating them to create one of the greatest games ever - and to continue that brilliance until the present day.
That was entirely different gameplay, with more RPG and less strategy. I remember how I read about it in some magazine and was greatly excited. When it came out, I liked it even more than I expected, that was one kick-ass game.
And then I found World Editor. Needless to say, I was stunned, I spent all my free time playing with JASS (wc3 scripting language), and that was very probably a deciding factor in me becoming a programmer. Hell, even now, I think I could make a decent map if paired with a good landscape designer/storymaker. I haven't finished many maps and projects in my time but the process of creation/programming was so incredibly enjoyable, that end result didn't even matter.
I wonder if there are any other world editors on HN.
 http://www.scrollsoflore.com/gallery/albums/war3_prerelease/... also click arrows on the page, there is more.
One thing that isn't very clear from the writeup: we went through a LONG trough of sorrow before finding our current pivot. That's a story for another day...
For example the real estate industry has been upset most in New Zealand by trademe, a company started by someone who wanted an easier way to buy a used toaster. The industry here is still scrambling to catch up, instead of competing with a startup trying to emulate their business model.
By doing what the article suggests, you'll be above mediocre at best. Think different (tm).
A lot of real estate start ups are trying to "Avoid the Broker." The system isn't as broken as we may think. Landlords enjoy minimal vacancy. Brokers get paid generously. Tenants find apartments.
Complaining about a 15% broker fee is like complaining about the gas for your Lamborghini.
Or to add it as a link to the developer's website like desktop apps can have in the Store?
The requirements are here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh74...
Can't see anything really bad there, if anything those rules finally herd the Windows application cats.
I guess its cool.... but no, not really.
Hover over the logo and watch how the colors on the page change
This is (roughly) the framerate I get when I tried it on the three browsers (all latest version, Windows Vista):
Safari: 60 fps (or 30, or whatever "completely smooth" means) Chrome: 20 fps (compared to Safari) Firefox: 30 fps (compared to Safari)
This is really what I was hoping to see with OpenID when it came out, but the process to set up an account and get started is much more cumbersome.
I look forward to seeing native support for Persona in browsers.
Just a load of buzzwords and awesomeness!1 of how this will revolutionize my account management and how easy the API is.
Is it a password manager, a biometric system or some kind of account provider?
Years ago, my email account was simply used for exchanging short pieces of text with acquaintances and companies. Now it's the central key to all my authentication sessions and finances, and therefore presents a huge target for attackers.
I've been looking for ways to reduce the risk associated with losing access to my email account, should that ever happen. Yet for all its benefits, Persona still places yet more importance on protecting my single email password.
This looks great, I got an identity service plugged in in hours, into a OSS website and this will kick openids bottom.
Brilliant - Mozilla is hitting some incredible high notes right now
So if I want to log in to a crossword puzzle I almost feel like I have to compromise my email password which is much more valuable, if say the public computer has a key logger or something.
Maybe I'm over thinking. I could see how this would be useful if I have my desktop mail client running and just click a link to log in though.
Getting providers onboard with this will be the make or break factor. And I'd really like it to succeed.
* What the hell does the JS assertion object look like?
* How do I run an independent service?
* In a single page, walk me through the steps to integrate?
Videos, dodgy music, overenthusiastic PFYs appeal to me much less than good documentation
Actual user case if everything is in place:
1. you are in a website using browserid protocol/persona (eg. http://crossword.thetimes.co.uk/)
2.hit the login link. Give your email address (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com)
3.it prompts for your password - gmail password or yahoo password
4.post authentication it takes you to the website with user session as firstname.lastname@example.orgemail@example.com - eg crossword.thetimes.co.uk
5.In a nutshell, end user doesn't need to create a new userid & password for using the website, as long as he knows his emailuserd/emailpassword
Present use case - since few things are missing
2.hit the login link. since gmail & yahoo as email providers not implemented browserid/persona protocol, you will asked to create an account in persona.org with any of your existing email address.(gmail / yahoo).
persona.org will send you a verification link to check if you really own your email address. Click on the verification link and you are verified to use persona.org account in all the places where browserid is supported
3.in the login page - it prompts for a new password if you are a new user or existing password if you are a returning user - this is the password for the email address used in persona.org registration.
5.In a nutshell, two things will change in future - no login window from persona.org & no need to create account in persona.org
And more cool mapping demos here:
I would probably click "yes" if it's < $5.
Not for every FB 'friend', but there's a 'sufficiently close' threshold where, yes, I'd click that button. Even better if it's day-of fulfillment. And I bet I'm not alone.
This is just step one. Once they get this working they are going to have all kinds of purchasing behavior and really be able to weave their way into all sorts of ecommerce scenarios. Their biggest challenge is going to be fulfillment (you don't want a birthday gift showing up late) so they are probably going to be very selective in who they partner with and are going to roll this out very slowly, since first impressions being good is essential.
Edit: Also there are all kinds of social experiments they can run to optimize conversions with this. If someone you know buys a gift for your friend, you are going to feel more pressure to do so. Etc.
All power to Facebook to make it work though: maybe if they can monetize themselves through means like this they'll pay more attention to privacy issues as they will have less incentive to make everything public for advertising/selling data.
Facebook would be served best by controlling gift quality with an iron fist. I'm a little skeptical they'll do that, but maybe.
This is very cool, though "Friends ... can swap for a different size, flavor or style before the gift ships."
Still. Quality. Quality. Quality.
2. Your friend is notified instantly
Friends enter their own shipping info and can swap for a different size, flavor or style before the gift ships.
What!? This seems like a huge product miss. It's almost the equivalent of buying someone a gift card. It removes the element of surprise that makes gift giving great and takes a lot of personality out of giving the gifts. I get that it's more practical but since when has giving gifts been about practicality?
IMO it would be a much better implementation to say "a friend is sending you a gift! Fill out your address so we can ship it out to you: ...".
I bet these people will be swimming in gifts once it's released.
e.g. What is you clicked a birthday notification and instead of just an option to post to the persons wall you could send a gift? Lots of opportunity here for Facebook to integrate this.
Edit: just watched the video and they are integrating with birthdays.
Last Call for Facebook Gifts (https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=405727117130)
This might be a great way to get your physical product in front of millions of people.
1) Does submission of prior art guarantee it will be looked at and considered ?
2) Must a prior art submission always be associated with a particular patent or set of patents ?
3) Can one submit prior art for a patent that does not exist yet or is in pending stage.
4) Do things like video clips (say of movies), showing objects or devices that don't exist, count as prior art ?
The "fuck 'em" attitude would be great if it were sustainable, but it's not. You can't keep living like a teenager when you're in your 40s. Want to have kids? Then, you need to own your house (it's good for their self-esteem and has measurable effects on their social and academic success to own the house they live in) and get them into good schools and make sure they have the opportunities (intellectual, athletic, creative, occupational) that will socialize them well and provide them with the connections to have a decent shot of actually achieving something instead of just being some entitled guy's pawn. Otherwise, you're just generating middle-grade meat for society to munch on. So kids are super-expensive, but you can't really have them at age 60, and you better have laid your groundwork (career-wise) for many years before you make that decision.
It makes me sick to read this bad advice that tells people they can just do what they want and that society will accept them for being unique, wonderful snowflakes. Or "do what you love and the money will follow". It's total bullshit. People generally suck and are mean-spirited and vindictive, and this idea that society will catch and nurture those who indulge themselves in a gap or two is ridiculous. You know what happens (if you're not rich and well-connected) to your career if you travel for 2 years after school? People resent the fuck out of you (because they didn't have or take that opportunity) and ding you for that alone. Six months of leisure travel when young is, for this reason, somewhat more of a liability than that amount of regular unemployment (which, post-2008, makes you look more unlucky than incompetent).
What you actually need to do is figure out what matters, what to care about, and how much. For example, you should care about your job well enough to do it well and get promotions. You should not care about it so much that you get into conflicts that damage your career. You should care about your success in the company (and in your career) but not about big-picture company-wide issues over which you have no influence. (Pay attention to these, because they may be relevant to your career, but don't get emotionally involved or take stupid risks, even when those risks benefit the company, because you won't give a shit about "good for the company" if you get fired.) You can't take a "fuck 'em" attitude or get a chip on your shoulder, but blind obedience to managerial authority is going to lead to mediocrity and misery and, in the long run, anomie. Somewhere between "yes, sir" douchebaggery and "fuck 'em" is the right attitude-- the "middle path".
I think many people who advise us in our young age grew up in a time when "travelling & writing" just wasn't a conceivable reality because there wasn't a market for any of that "finding yourself" bullshit. They were part of a society that was too busy putting a car in every garage and a chicken dinner in every dining room (and eventually sending kids to college and on Euro-trips).
I'm not saying you shouldn't go couch surfing across Eastern Europe if that's really what makes you feel alive, but don't dismiss an entire cultural mindset that made it possible for you to do so with a passport that will allow you across nearly every border in the world. "Travelling", for many non-westerners, means waiting for 2 years and checking with an embassy every single day to see if your Visa has been approved so your family can board a plane that allows you to leave your country for more than 6 months.
Seriously now. The path characterized in the article as "the plan" is not for everyone. And that's fine. I wish I were an America's Cup competitor. I am not. I am a pretty good recreational sailor. And that's OK. I chose to follow a path that led me to engineering and serial entrepreneurship. We don't all have to follow the same path.
So long as the focus is positive there's value in every path.
A better title for the post might have been "...and that's OK".
It kinda highlights the contradiction between what people say, and what people do. Fuck 'em? Sounds bold! But "driving a minivan with two baby seats in the back" well, that sounds...like me in five years.
Stated alternately, there's an awful lot of people online with regularly updated blogs, twitter accounts and other social profiles who seem particularly compelled to tell me how amazing their lives are.
Most organizations that send volunteers to developing countries are either evangelical or are looking for educated people with skills, both of which require the kind of conformism that this piece rallies against.
BTW, in all seriousness, who are Chandler and Monica?
Myself, I really only had the example of my parents and some relatives. I don't regret this, because I really like my path in life. It is not easy, but it is driving.
However, if I could give myself advice, it would be to mingle more with more people from more diverse lifestyles, just to see outcomes, attitudes and daily lives.
I've read a lot of the posts on that site and it always amazes me how people's knee jerk reaction is "you don't know me - don't tell me how to live".
Geezuz Jump-roping Christ - panties have never been bunched up so quickly by so many by so few words.
Ephemeral ports aren't assigned to inbound connections, they're used for outbound connections. So, for the client-to-nginx connection, both the server IP and port are fixed (the port will be either 80 or 443) - only the client IP and port change, so for a collision all you need is for a client to re-use the same port on its side quickly.
For the nginx to node connection, both IPs and the server port are fixed, leaving only the ephemeral port used by nginx to vary. You don't have to worry about out-of-order packets here though, since the connection is loopback.
Note that only the side of the connection that initiates the close goes into TIME_WAIT - the other side goes into a much shorter LAST_ACK state.
Excellent article on the subject.: http://www.speedguide.net/articles/linux-tweaking-121
Have you tried using upstream keepalive http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_upstream_module.html#... This should help keep the number of connections, and thus ephemeral port and tcp memory loading down.
As for node.js, core only ever holds a connection open for once through the event loop, and even then, only if there are requests queued. If you have any kind of high volume tcp client in node, this will also cause issues w/ ephemeral port exhaustion and thus tcp memory loading. Check out https://github.com/TBEDP/agentkeepalive in that case. Related to tcp memory load issues in general, this is a helpful paper http://www.isi.edu/touch/pubs/infocomm99/infocomm99-web/
Use this: ssh-keygen -b 521 -t ecdsa
That's (a lot) faster than RSA 16384 bit keys. A 200bit ECDSA key is +- (there's many factors involved) equivalent to a 2048bit RSA key.
Also the 521bit ECDSA not only verifies faster, it generates instantly (on current hardware), instead of taking a few coffess with the 16K RSA.
Finally, remember that, by the time we've enough computer power to brute force either of the above, one of these will probably happen:
- RSA or ECDSA may be logically broken
- you will be dead
- the hardware and software will not run anymore
- a new computer power breakthrough will make the choice of strength and cipher irrelevant (one can hope)
But if everybody who logs on uses the same level of security, then it is that secure, otherwise it realy is down to the weakest link and even a home box can be taken out by a house cat who can't even use the vi editor.
Enter the xkcd World with Friends: http://www.pubnub.com/static/pubnub-xkcd/index.html
Everyone is spawning at the same point. I just see a flood of dead users. Some jerk around a little and appear and disappear. But very little interaction.
Is it possible to multiple spawn points when demand is high and separate channels/servers for various areas that you switch as you move? (like Second Life)
I believe a node.js (or something else) version could be federated, and/or clients connect to various servers as they travel.
I know this is just a toy, but it would be interesting to see this work well at a large scale.
Also the dynamic poll/sample interval you implemented seems to hit 1000ms (1 second) and stay there.
There most definitely is a server, so can anyone explain what they meant by that instead?
They use a Zenboard (Xilinx Zync, ARM+FPGA) as a base platform. My first reaction; they claim this being 'open source'. Nothing about the ARM processor or even the core inside the FPGA is open source. Also, what they will deliver is the toolchain and the documentation, but no IP or RTL code for the cores. Another Fauxpen source project... using it merely as a buzzword to get people involved; comparable to the Beagleboard to get usecases and branding out.
When hardware is called "open source", they need to look at how Milkymist does it. PCB design files are offered, but also the RTL verilog is available for the CPU (in fact the whole SoC).
$750k seems really ambitious for a kickstarter project with such a niche audience. Is that realistic for 29 days, considering you need to sell 7500 units of the $99 pledge amount? At the end of day 7, Leapmotion had 15,000 applications for a free leap motion device and SDK, and that is a device with a much larger audience.
Do you have any investor lined up that would be willing to maybe match a Kickstarter total pledge amount of something realistic like $375k?
Have you considered approaching a fund like In-Q-Tel? This seems like the kind of project they would fund, since I imagine a lot of the best parallel computing work is being done in government-funded agencies and labs. I also imagine the government is probably the biggest employer of people working on parallel processing devices. With that in mind, getting a device like this into the hands of many, allows more people to get hands on exposure to parallel computing.
Overall, it feels like the funding strategy needs to be diversified, because I imagine it will be difficult to get $750k all from one source, with the exception of a VC fund whose thesis aligns with your goals.
Lastly, it feels like a project like this would be a bit too soon. Many developers who are playing with hardware have been playing around with the arduino for a few years, some are now graduating to the Raspberry Pi, which offers clear benefits over the Arduino because you can run tons of stuff simply not possible on the Arduino. However as the Raspberry Pi just came out, I imagine that most developers are still trying to get their hands on something like it and still don't feel the pain of trying to solve problems with it, that could only be solved with something like the parallella.
As a hobbyist, besides exploring parallel computing for its own sake, what other kinds of problems can I explore/solve with the parallella which simply wouldn't be possible on the raspberry pi? Sell a dream and possibilities here. I'm personally not familiar with what would only be possible on a parallella and I might feel more interested in this project if I know why I'd want it (besides learning pp for its own sake).
 http://adafruit.com/products/791 http://propeller.wikispaces.com/Programming+in+C+-+Catalina
Turns out their product isn't remotely similar: up to 64 cores at 800mhz, plus a dual-core ARM CPU. I wonder why they are doing a kickstarter instead of harvesting their dollars from server appliances.
The CISC vs. RISC days are long over and the battle between the two architectures is a bit silly at this point since the gap between the instruction set and the underlying implementation has gotten quite dramatic. Claims that RISC chips are inherently more efficient may have been true in 1995, but I don't see this holding water today.
I bet they're going to love that. There's nothing people like more than filling out the same form over and over again, after all.
The overall user base of App.net is constrained by financial limitations (pay to play yearly).
So if someone creates an app off of their platform, like the simple chess app, they also need to be a member of App.net to play it. So while you may see the benefits and be a member of App.net, if you want to convince your friend to play who isn't a member of App.net you also need to convince them to pay and join App.net.
App.net is arguing that their business model does not require lots of users to be sustainable. While that may be true, for network effects to take hold, you need users.
All that paying for apps does is get uncommitted developers doing second-rate work. It sets the expectation that payments will continue as well.
I was bullish about ADN until I read this news. Now I fear it is doomed...
A replacement for traditional communication (instant messaging) that is built into everything.
Seems like there's some "low hanging fruit" problems that this app ecosystem could attempt to solve. First is search and discovery. Just do it better than Apple. Then there's the review process. Just scratch that entirely and use collaborative filtering to let the best apps bubble up to the top of the list. Of course have some flag for offensive, hate related etc apps.
How about partnering with Stripe and having an in-app-purchase system where developers get 100% of the revenue? Or perhaps 90%. Just being better than Apple is a great start.
One more thought: Apple's app ecosystem had the benefit of users' CC info pre-entered. Seems like app.net could benefit from the CC or other payment info already supplied by users when signing up.
On the other hand, I'm glad they're going to suspend developers who goad; I am sick of every app on my phone asking me to go give it five stars.
I believe that next big social platform will be open, decentralized, interface-independent and wont be under direct control of a single company/organization. Something like an email, just an api...
I think the logic behind the feedback system is pretty good too. A lot of users won't bother submitting feedback, but the ones that do are already motivated to submit feedback and therefore reward apps they like. So it's in the best interest of devs to create apps that delight their users. Win-win all around.
Let's see how they behave once they actually have users.
For example, if women only made up 10% of college CS majors, Microsoft wanted to have 20% female interns.
I replied that, if that were their goal, they would most likely have to lower the bar as compared to a male intern, or else pay the female interns more, give them more perks, or purposefully interview fewer qualified male interns.
My argument was that if Microsoft's hiring bar was the top 1%, most likely only 10% of that candidate pool is female. So, one must either drop the bar for females, interview more females in that pool than males, or somehow double the chance that a female in that 10% of 1% accepted your internship offer. However, in those days almost nobody rejected Microsoft offers, so that last route seemed difficult.
The only way to maintain equality of pay and skill without purposefully rejecting male applicants is to spend a huge amount of effort finding more female applicants than male applicants in that 1% and persuading them to apply. But that's still not really fair, as that really implies that recuiters pay less attention to males, e.g. spending less time and money finding them and recruiting them.
The HR representative got very angry, but couldn't articulate why.
On my office wall hangs my degree -- first class honours from a good university. I still half expect that one day they will ask for it back, that they were just being nice because they like me.
My Dad has it bad -- very bad. He has > 50 years experience in his field. He knows more about electricity than most electrical engineers. I tried to convince him to join the IEEE; with his experience and knowledge they'd probably bump him up to Senior Member grade quick smart.
Nope. Not good enough.
This can actually be quite crippling -- he used to give away his services rather than charging for them. "Too simple a job, I couldn't possibly charge for it". He was not a successful small businessman, thinking like that.
It takes most of my willpower to ask people for money. Because surely, I'm not that good. Surely.
Note that the former never was able to pass interviews, but it was only enough to get a foot in the door. It goes without saying that I have worked with many extremely capable women that no one would question they deserve everything they have, but it is easy and to see why some insecure college students have some backlash at having explicit discrimination against them (usually for the first time ever), since they are not being able to see how the less explicit but very real institional discrimination against women.
I read something recently that suggested using language like "You really earnt that [whatever]" when complimenting people. That is, you define the merit in terms of the person's effort which, hopefully, the recipient of the compliment is less able to deny. We often deserve nice things, but when we think we earnt them it's a more concrete achievement that's harder to wave away with impostor syndrome.
Long story short, I'm used to being dismissed or looked over by my male peers - often in CS, but also in the hobbies I've taken up over the years. I found the only way to be listened to or respected was that I had to prove myself very quickly to anyone I had to work with. I got my interview after talking to a Microsoft dev doing recruitment for 10 minutes about a project I worked on after identifying he had a personal interest in that field. He didn't even look at my resume, but I saw him star it when I gave it at the end of our chat.
I would never have been able to do that if I wasn't used to being over-looked. I can signal that I'm competent and easily discuss projects or tech interests within a couple minutes of meeting someone because in the past few years, I've learned that when I neglect to do that, I'm going to get ignored. Because of that, I have an incredibly advantage in that many of my male peers CAN'T do that, simply because they've never had to until it came time to search for a job.
FWIW, one of the biggest reasons I'm returning to Microsoft is that it's one of the few places I've ever felt like I was respected off the bat regardless of age or gender. I couldn't imagine working with most of my peers back in school because of the lack of respect. There are bad apples everywhere, and certain teams are definitely geared towards older folk - but there are highschool kids doing internships there, in some very coveted areas. The guy was out of line, but he's definitely the exception and not the norm.
But, I also think it's important not to fall prey to what I think is the opposite problem: the narrative fallacy. It's easy to feel that you were "fated" for many positions. Or, if not some form of predestination, then some notion that things were "bound" to happen. I know that there was an enormous amount of luck in how I ended up where I am today. While your abilities may have enabled you to be in an elite pool of candidates, there may still be some random chance that landed you the position instead of one of your fellow elite candidates. I can think of three instances that afforded me opportunities that have made enormous impact on my career that were essentially luck.
What you can control is that when you are lucky, make sure you make the most of it. When fellow grad students would ask me for advice on finding jobs, the best I could do was reply, "Be lucky and be good."
So don't feel guilty about how or why you got an opportunity. You came by it honestly, and whether Microsoft feels their benefit from you is due to your ability or your gender, the fact is you are benefiting them or they wouldn't give you the opportunity. Enjoy it and use the chance to improve yourself as much as possible.
> âGood one,â I said. After all, we were talking about my Microsoft internship. Microsoft has a program for women and underrepresented minorities, but I wasn't in it. I was a regular old SDE intern.
Yes - but what if you had been in one of those programs? That is the problem with explicitly preferring some group over another, not based on their skill level, when the people you select want to only be selected for their skill and nothing else.
I'm not saying that sexism in the industry isn't a problem, but the solution is more difficult than "just hire more women"
Bollocks. Linux has not been marginalized. It is dominating the server market, embedded devices, and smartphones in the form of android.
whereas the Bitcoin Foundation will work to promote a cryptocurrency sometimes used for blackmarket activity.
Haven't you heard? The dollars are used for black market activities too.
Regarding the endorphin hypothesis, there's another parallel hypothesis which is that the good feelings of exercise are just a symptom of oxygen deprivation in the brain:
Altitude-chamber tests have shown that as oxygen deprivation increases, some victims experience a sense of increasing well-being, even euphoria, while they're losing the ability to function in a thoughtful, coordinated manner.
I find the whole tracking and logging weights, reps and feelings while working out to be daunting and pointless. Maybe it's because I am not a "I'm going to start working out and dieting" type person, rather I just live a healthy lifestyle by design. I don't "diet", I just try to eat healthy in general. I don't have a "work out routine", I just try to be physical every day. It makes the whole exercise process more a part of my natural life, rather than something I have to schedule.
I enjoy going to the gym and getting a good workout, doing whatever I feel like at the moment. The important part to me is working up a sweat and getting my heart pumping, not how many reps with a certain weight I did. I can see if you have a goal of weight loss or increasing your strength to a certain level that can be measured by numbers, but if you are aiming for general health, why do you need to keep a detailed log? Just try to exercise everyday, regardless of what that includes.
If you do keep a detailed log of your workouts, what kind of actionable data does that information provide you? Do you refer back to it daily, weekly, monthly and try to optimize your workouts based on your previous history? If so, how?
"I believe this endorphin in runners is a total fantasy in the pop culture," said psychobiologist Huda Akil, Ph.D., from the University of Michigan. The endorphin theory had several problems, the most serious being that endorphins are too large to pass through the blood-brain barrier that border-patrols your gray matter.
That's exaggerated. It's simply a reaction to increased level of effort. It's not always a full-fledged fight-or-flight response, unless it's a quite strenuous type of exercise.
> The first 20 minutes of moving around, if someone has been really sedentary, provide most of the health benefits. You get prolonged life, reduced disease risk â" all of those things come in in the first 20 minutes of being active.
Makes sense. Exercise a little every day, even if it's some very mild form like walking. Laying down on the couch all day long is bad.
1. Start small. It's much easier to talk yourself into exercising for 10 minutes 3 days a week.
2. Exercise at home. I hated going to a gym so I never did it.
3. Do something fun.
All of these made it much easier to exercise consistently, which was my goal. I stopped running and weight lifting and started doing yoga, cycling, rock climbing and boxing instead. I'm not ripped or anything but I have plenty of functional strength and more energy and happiness than I've ever felt before. I'd say yoga and biking give me the most long-lasting pleasure, whereas rock climbing and boxing give me a quick intense flood when I'm done with them. It's really great feeling like this...most days I feel ready to do something crazy and fun like bike to wine country for wine tasting, or spend time in a wood shop, or go to another country on a whim. Last year I felt like I peaked at going out to dinner with friends a couple times a week (and I barely had energy for that). I also don't miss the mid-afternoon lazy slump or the weeks where I'd feel like my thinking was foggy and there was no way to clear it.
I also think it's a great way for entrepreneurs to exercise their minds. The full Ironman is extremely long and takes long term determination. It's not something you can simply hack together (as some people do by minimal training and walking 6-hour marathons). So in a way it allows me to go through a long term process of building up my body (i.e. a company) and make tweaks along the way to improve the performance. I can't tell you how many times I've failed along the way and get better as a result.
Although there is no real way to quantify this, I would say my ability to focus at work as drastically increased. I much more confident and happy as a result.
Curious - anyone else on HN do triathlons?
I feel brighter (not in the intelligence sense but in the photonic sense). That is, I feel like I'm pushing positive energy out into the world instead of negative energy. It has been a fairly subtle shift over the last 3 months, but in my mind it is undeniable.
"Exercise Does Not Make You Less Depressed (bmj.com)" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4446400
The usual HN article that contains criticisms is usually limited to that. Some rant that took 10 minutes to write and contains nothing constructive.
Bret Victor put an insane amount of time into this (I can only assume) and is truly advancing mindsets about programming tools and learning. We should all be thankful that he put this much effort into a "criticism" piece.
I don't think this describes most real work done by programmers. Rather, what he says we should do,
To enable the programmer to achieve increasingly complex feats of creativity, the environment must get the programmer out of her head, by providing an external imagination where the programmer can always be reacting to a work-in-progress.
Is exactly what most programmers already do. We usually don't have a nice, interactive environment to do so; it's usually a combination of coding, inspecting results, thinking some more about new issues, coding, inspecting results, on up until the problem is solved.
In other words, I think that programmers do tend to solve problems by "pushing paint around." I rarely start with a full appreciation of the problem. But in order to gain that understanding, I have to start trying to solve it, which means starting to write some code, and usually looking at results. As I go through this process, the domain of the problem comes into focus, and I understand better how to solve it.
We already do what Bret is talking about, but not at the granularity he is talking about it. For beginners, I can understand why this difference is important. But I certainly solve problems by pushing paint around.
In general, I think this is a fantastic piece for teaching programming, but I don't think (so far) that all of it carries over to experienced programmers. The examples of having an autocomplete interface that immediately shows icons of the pictures they can draw is great for people just learning. But that's too fine-grained for experienced programmers. Chess masters don't need to be shown the legal moves on a board for a bishop; their understanding of the problem is so innate at that point that they no longer play the game in such elementary terms. Similarly, experienced programmers develop an intuition for what is possible in their programming environment, and will solve problems at a higher level than "I need to draw something." That is the reason we put up with existing programming environments.
He's always been right and I hope he continues to have patience while he continues his conversation with the world as the world misunderstands his ideas. Unfortunately many people are going to latch on to the examples in his demo movies, and the important parts of the essay will fly over their heads. (The most important part of this essay being, of course, to read Mindstorms.)
All of his creative output points to the same core message: programming today is broken because it is not designed. His various essays, talks, and so on are just alternative "projections" of this thesis. This is a sign of clear thinking.
He's given us all the tools we need to solve this problem. These tools are the mental framework he lays out, not the specific concrete flavor he demoed in his latest talk or essay.
The hard part is not building IDEs or visualizations, it's having the guts to throw everything out and start over again, knowing it's going to be a mess for a long time and it will take years before things start to make sense again. It's convincing yourself that most of what you know is useless and that many of your assumptions are wrong.
Why do that when you can just download the latest whiz bang framework and start hacking shit together taking advantage of the life-long skill you've acquired at firing bullets with a blindfold on?
It's scary to be a newborn again, especially when you're in a place where few have been before (and those that have, are largely not around anymore.)
First off, rather than just saying Khan Academy missed the point, Mr. Victor goes over in extreme detail with full examples with ideas on how to do it better.
Second, he really went into some detail about how to think about things. Not just the solutions but ideas and ways of thinking to come up with better solutions.
Third, he's set the bar for critiques higher than I've ever seen. Next time I want to critique something I'm going to feel at least some responsibility to give good and clear examples of both what I think is wrong and what I think would be better with reasons.
Fourth, even if I never write software to help learning programming or help programming advance in general I'll certainly be influenced in my API and system designs by this post.
Thank you Mr. Victor
As he himself alludes to, most of what he is teach is not programming - it is individual actions. Just as being taught the meaning of individual words does not teach you to write, being taught what certain functions or statements do does not teach you to program.
What is important is not spelling, but grammar - the shape of a program. His parts on Loops and Functions are better on this - the timeline showing loop instruction order is pretty awesome. However, it's still not perfect. At no point is the user instructed what a 'function' is, and how to use it. How do they know that they should be using it? I agree with other commentators who have suggested that it looks too much like he knows what he is aiming for, and the tool is designed to aid that.
In fact, my strongest criticism is in regards to his rebuttal to Alan Perlis:
> Alan Perlis wrote, "To understand a program, you must become both the machine and the program." This view is a mistake, and it is this widespread and virulent mistake that keeps programming a difficult and obscure art. A person is not a machine, and should not be forced to think like one.
I'm sorry Bret, but Alan is right. You do need to be able to think like a machine. Not necessarily an x86 machine, but an abstract turing machine, or a state machine, or a lambda calculus machine. If you cannot think like the machine, you cannot outwit the machine. This is incredible important if you are relying on the machine to give you feedback on what the system is doing.
In all his examples, very simple things happen, and never go wrong more than drawing in the wrong place. What happens if he starts causing an infinite loop? Or creates cycles in a linked list (and remember, sometimes he may in fact want cycles).
In "Godel, Escher, Bach", Douglas Hofstadter suggests that one of the key ingredients for intelligence is being able to go 'up' a level of abstraction. Bret's comment about a circle being made up of small steps, and hence integrating over a differential function, is part of it. A human can recognise that sequential steps with a consistently changing angle can be viewed as a circle. A human can realise that certain relationships are iterative, recursive, self-referential, in a way that (currently) a computer cannot. This is what needs to be taught, and I fear that what Bret has shown here would not help in that element.
However, it's still going to be a better intro than anything we have currently, so I think that in regards to getting people to dip in and try, it will be a vast help. I just hope that Bret keeps thinking about bridging the chasm between setting down series' of instructions, and programming.
Remember how Don Quixote was fighting windmills because they were "giants oppressing the people"? He was right! And everyone in Cervantes' day knew it.
Windmills did not, contrary to popular belief, mostly spread as convenient labour-saving devices. Instead they spread as a way for the local lord to enforce taxes. When peasants had hand mills, there was no easy way to see how much food they really had grown, so it was hard to collect taxes. But if they go to the local miller, the miller takes your grain, grinds it, and then takes the lord's cut right there. There is no possible hiding of the food you've grown.
In countries with a strong peasant class, like Sweden, the lords were unable to introduce this form of central taxation. And I've read reports that hand mills were still in use there as late as WW II.
Needless to say, this article is my motivator for the day.
In fact, not to wax overly lyrical, I think a lot of stories that appeal to people in general follow that pattern. Something about the best aspects of humanity in that kind of endeavour.
This is actually a serious question - for the various makers on HN, is it sacrificing other things, older (or no) children, flexible jobs, independant income. Or just really awesome time management?
I would like to know so either I stop beating myself up for bad time management, or improve it.
I wouldn't have thought that creating a windmill is such a difficult thing. Always cool to learn something new from an unknown domain.
Italy certainly has its share of troubles these days, but the above made me smile a bit. There are still some good things here.
Or even write a detailed ebook showing others how to do the same, and maybe sell the tricky parts like the stator sheets and blades to budding windmill DIYers. Great project.
Friends of mine are building vertical axis turbines. The key to safety seems to be to make the blades out of lightweight foam & kevlar so that if they do shatter they aren't flinging big heavy pieces around.
Good article though. For those using software to design and analyze mechanical designs with "pretty good confidence," there's nothing more humbling than actually trying to build it.
What gauge and quality of metal is that?
Very cool project- there are a good number of residential scale manufacturers out there, but I believe this is the first homebrew wind turbine I've seen.
I've read the circular ones are far more quiet?
About 15 years later, differential cryptoanalysis was publicly discovered. The original S-box values would have been very vulnerable to the attack, but the ones the NSA used were resistant, suggesting that NSA knew about differential cryptoanalysis way ahead of time and were suggesting ways to protect the public against its eventual discovery.
It is possible that there is still some magic in there to let the NSA magically defeat DES, but we still haven't found it. Similarly, it's possible that this random number generator exists for some nefarious purpose, but we have no evidence for it.
Also, this article is 5 years old (the headline didn't say so when I first read this). Schneier was in pretty big self-promotion mode at that time.
IIRC, during the standarization of DES, the NSA has also modified some S-Boxes without giving any explanation. Only later, when differential cryptoanalysis became known to the public, it was clear that this was to strengthen DES against this particular attack (which was already known to the NSA).
The case here is more interesting though: It seems like you need to know some secret numbers (a sort of "private key" if you will) to be able to attack the PRNG. So it seems that the NSA could place a "safe" backdoor that even an attacker with the same cryptography knowledge as they have cannot break unless he himself possesses the "private key".
Then we will have a series of people proclaiming how Android is not really open and what a farce Google's pretense of openness is, and what fools we were to ever believe that Google intended to make an open source operating system.
Frequently this will be followed by people lamenting "fragmentation" and demanding that Google put a stop to it by putting tight controls on who can implement Android and how they can do it.
These are all different sides of the same coin. Openness = fragmentation, openness = loss of control, openness = diversity, choice, innovation and endless possibility. It has benefits and downsides to be sure, but to think Google didn't know they were giving up some control of Android when they released it as open source is absurd - open sourcing something is by definition giving up control of it.
Regarding the article, whatever Google has controlled since the beginning they have never lost, which is providing the "Google Experience" On Android.
Fragmentation is not a problem because Google still is the primary Android services provider. If Samsung or HTC started doing what Amazon is doing and selling Android phones without Google apps and search as a default, then Google's in trouble.
Google's biz model is to give away Android for free, but make up for it in money from the Play market, mobile ads, and mobile search.
And so more importantly, why does it matter for Android? It doesn't mean Android is more fragmented, because those phones aren't Android phones, it just means one more competitor in the smart phone market.
If anything, it makes it easier for developers, because Amazon phones will be easier to port to than another random smart phone brand.
If Amazon ever tries to do a major fork at the API level we'll be in trouble, but they have shown no sign of that as of yet.
Somehow, I don't think they were trying hard to retain control of the OS.
Im sure there is a lot of hand wringing going on behind the scenes for this to not have happened yet but its inevitable.
From a practical perspective, one largely buys insurance to smooth out either cash shocks or future decreases in earning potential rather than for diversification. Having a startup fail is not going to be a cash shock. Your earning potential if your startup fails should go up, because you're worth six figures on the open market trivially, and you probably were not paying yourself that previously.
1. You buy into the fund with your shares.
2. The shares had to have had a valuation by a major VC in the past N months (N=4 IIRC).
3. You had to retain X% (they didn't want founders dumping on the fund.)
Finally decided it wasn't worth it. It is very difficult to have faith in other people's valuations of non-tradeable stock.
in a sense, trading any of your company for other companies might be a negative expected value play
In general, insurance is a negative expected value. After all, that's how insurance companies make money: by charging more than they pay out. The key with insurance, however, is that it is purchased to cover a catastrophic event. That is, all the money you pay into it will hopefully be more than the money you get out of it but if you end up needing really expensive medical treatments or your house burns down you need to be able to afford to move forward.
With founders and the "founder failure insurance" there is significantly less of this, though. If you fail you don't get an immediate payout, or even a guaranteed payout, failure is not a catastrophic event (in the sense of needing a lot of money fast) for most, and it's actually possible to do well and make money from this.
Really, a more honest way of describing this is as a bet that you will lose, though that's not a complete picture, either.
Intriguing idea nevertheless and something I'd consider if I were a founder.
If I wanted to take out some risk, I'd rather cash out some equity using more traditional means and putting it some place safe (or at least different), not other startups.
Speaking personally, I want to own as much equity as possible in a company I start. 3% is a ridiculous amount of common stock to go towards something like this.
http://ebexchangefunds.com/ is one popular one... :-)
Might be smart to "diversify risk" in an investor sense, but as a startup, you're more akin to a team than an investor.
It seems akin to a pitcher betting against his own team in order to make money himself. Sure, he might come out ahead, but that's not the point of the team.
If you really want to invest in other startups, put up some cash.
The people that think their startup is likely to fail will be most likely to contribute to the pool.
The "fix" is "easy": If you want referrer data, offer your site over SSL or use the Google Webmaster tools (I don't know whether there is an API to get to that data).
Browsers don't send a referrer header if the referring site is SSL and the target site is not. This has always been the case even on the desktop.
https://www.google.com?q=referer and then click to www.whatismyreferer.com- no referer as expected.
http://www.google.com?q=referer and then click to www.whatismyreferer.com - a valid referer as expected.
Nothing to see here folks.
> However, it does seem like this issue is specific with Google. So I suspect it is either a bug on Google's side (or a feature).
If this is what he suspects, why does he phrase the title as if it is something in iOS 6 that is causing the issue.
Search https://www.google.com in a desktop browser and you will get a results page where the links don't like you directly to the result page, they actually take you to an http redirect page which then forwards you to your final destination (which now gets a "google.com" referer.
On my iPhone and my Nexus 7 if I do a search on https://www.google.com the results page does not have the http redirect link. So the final destination does not get a referer.
This seems to be a behavior on Google's side that is different for desktop and mobile browsers, there's nothing specific to Apple here.
In fact, I did the exact same thing but with the User-Agent set to iOS 6. No referrer data.
This is a problem on Google's side.