Source: We rely on OpenGL to render video in mpv, and we are currently switching from using a WGL context by default to using ANGLE. Maybe this could be a third option?
It turns out that the code is offered under the (very permissive) MIT license. Cool.
While I'm not entirely sure what the strategy is with this, I'm fairly surprised by the move. This is something that would have been unheard of from Microsoft even a decade ago. They've made a bunch of really huge strides in FLOSS, but they've all been centered around developer mindshare. I totally get open-sourcing your developer tooling, especially in consideration of their Azure ambitions, which isn't bad.
I really like VS Code, which has become my daily editor of choice, I keep meaning to try the integrated debugging, but haven't. The .Net core releases have me looking at C# again, in a fairly new light. The Linux Subsystem for Windows is impressive.
All of that said, this move still surprises me. I'm not sure if/how much it will benefit the larger developer community, but it is really nice to see a much more open MS. All I can say is that the next half decade will be particularly interesting in terms of software improvements as hardware has started to level off.
That's the key quote in the article. It's a fair decision from his standpoint but I wonder if saying that will lead investors to question his determination in the future (if he tries a new venture). I suppose the investors could also appreciate that he didn't want to waste more of their money if he didn't believe in the product.
As far as tools go, ethnography can be very powerful in the right hands.
Sorry man. Good call not to waste a year of your life.
"But most of the time, customers dont really want the the features they are asking for. At least not very badly."
Customer feedback drives an absurd amount of our roadmap at Cronitor. We have a good idea of the many shortcomings of our product and are constrained primarily by resources in developing it faster. When a customer -- especially somebody on a trial -- puts their thumb on the scale of a specific flaw or deficiency, we look at it as an opportunity to seriously delight that user and at the same time level-up the product for all users after. We don't build everything asked for, but I would say "most of the time, customers know exactly what they need, and we try to give it to them within our ability."
A specific example for us would be Etsy, who uses Cronitor on a part of their business and during evaluation asked for a couple API endpoints to expose more advanced functionality.
There should have been some guideposts here: who were the power users? what did they love? who were the huge detractors? what was their big issue? how did ContractBeast fit into the ideal world? how were people splitting their work between the old system and ContractBeast? were there network effects for the old system?
Yeah we can look at some sort of short term win and long term gain framework, but it's pretty reductionist to a) only depend on that framework and b) not be able to come up with any solutions to fulfill short term wins.
Maybe the next generation of UX will have change management built into the system, not just tours and tooltips. For now, the burden of software adoption is best served with donuts and somebody how cares enough to make it work for the business that is investing in it.
I don't really understand "having nothing" -- you're either creating value or you're not. You guys spotted a real problem, but your v1 solution was meh. There were certainly multiple ways out (and not just tack on gamification), and even if some were long-shots, the uniqueness of a startup is to place those bets.
Interesting comment in there about 'Approvals' being one of the most used feature. Why couldn't you build around that? A more generic approvals solution for any kind of contract.
For example: use a chunk of the $500k as rewards to push people through the initial adoption. Then presumably the real gains would take over and they'd be happy customers.
There are prolly more ...
Patrick McKenzie has demonstrated that you can do high-touch corporate sales as a small organization or even as a single person. He just needed to figure out how.
Sometimes what you build becomes bigger than you. If you want to quit, and everyone else wants to keep going why not let someone else run the show?
If you started a chess club, or even a chatroom, and had no time (as the guy says, he only has one life) to be an admin, would you just close down the whole thing and kick everyone out? Maybe. If they really were so passionate they'd pick up the pieces and start their own thing. Your old group might have a way to transfer the accumulated wealth to the new group. Instead of just losing it.
I remember writing an article about this a couple years ago called the Politics of Groups:
Here is an excerpt:
If the individual - the risk is that the individual may have too much power over others who come to rely on the stream. They may suddenly stop publishing it, or cut off access to everyone, which would hurt many people. (I define hurt in terms of needs or strong expectations of people that form over time.)
I think this guy needed to take a day off or seven and get his head back on straight. I'm nearly positive every entrepreneur goes through the "doubt" process many times in a given start-up.
It's the person that figures out how to renew themselves that ends up succeeding.
They certainly don't have to and I'm not sure if Apple or Microsoft do or not for their equivalents, but I know Microsoft offers patent indemnification for a lot of things these days. It would be in Google's best interest to have a patent indemnification policy for Google Play store.
I'd love to know what the actual numbers look like but I'd be willing to bet that the costs are extremely low since it works as a deterrent to these kinds of lawsuits. Patent trolls go after these lone developers because they'll settle rather than incur the cost. It's an easy buck. This guy didn't make Google Play, he didn't write the code that "supposedly" infringed on the patent. He simply used it because that's the only way for practical purposes to publish an Android app. And since the patent covers a large set of features that Play uses for licensing, he couldn't have published through Play and not infringed in the eyes of Uniloc. The law allows anyone in the chain (including the guy playing with the Flight Simulator) to be sued for infringement, but they'd be very unlikely to do this kind of garbage if they knew Google would bring their legal team into the fold. By not protecting their developers, Google has a deterrent to people using their platform.
I agree with clavelle's comment. It's not so much the laws, but the system that allows this to occur.
Link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4n08jj/developer_i...
I'm also curious why numerous developers have not demanded an Insurance Protection Product / Plan that would take a premium in return for subrogation (defense) if a frivolous Patent Suit is filed. I'm rather certain the market exists and while it may be for larger businesses or players, developers forming a Mutual Company and writing on some big name AM Best A paper (or even going to Lloyds) could be helpful.
Anybody know of such an organization or idea?
I guess my line of thinking here is that "Yes, this is totally unfair and rigged" and then move on to "How do I work around the issues, at least to a limited extent, to avoid these pitfalls?" Sign me up for reform, sure, I'm all for it. Until then, I don't like banging my head against walls, I prefer to figure out ways around or over them.
He visits East Texas and shows that the 'offices' of the 'companies' that hold each patent are empty shells.
https://popehat.com/2016/06/06/lawsplainer-when-must-federal... Article is in the context of Trump, but you needn't let that turn you off.
He had just won a three year litigation with the same group, after which they pointed out that even though he had won a battle, they had enough BS patents to keep him in court for several lifetimes. He is currently in year 4 out of a projected 450.
Patent trolls file these frivolous lawsuits because they make millions and suffer zero consequences for their actions. Why? Because there is no industry trade group representing the software industry with any sort of teeth. They know software developers have money, and they know software developers are absurdly weak when it comes to defending themselves. Software developers are easy prey.
Other than the EFF who is out there to represent us with any measure of real leverage over the legal process? Who is out there with the muscle to make patent trolls and software unfriendly lawmakers have second thoughts when targeting developers?
With no lobbies or trade associations with any sort of power out there representing consumer software, anyone with even minor influence over government can simply walk all over software developers, again and again and again. The consumer software industry has enormous amounts of cash at it's disposal, surely a few cash rich companies can pool enough resources together to kick off a trade association worthy of punching back, hard
"Ric Richardson is an Australian inventor. He is the holder of multiple granted patents including the Uniloc patent US5490216 and the Logarex patent 6400293. Although he spent twelve years in California to promote and develop products produced by Uniloc, Richardson grew up in Sydney and currently resides just outside Byron Bay.
He is the founder of Uniloc, a company based on the technology he first patented in 1992."
Here's his picture from the Uniloc web site:http://uniloc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ricrichardson.p...
He's apparently insanely talented, having "invented" the panic button, the visual voice recorder, the 3G skype phone, the secure browser, the universal database, the carbon scrubber, the book dispensor, "media objects", the "Internet Computer", QR Codes, DRM, a password replacement system, TV muting, and several dozen other devices, just in the past 16 years alone.
I say slay the trolls, slay the judges, slay them all - by legal means if possible. I would love to find an old Texas law that allows trial by combat with no substitutions...
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/24/is-rpxs-defensive-patent-ag...
For example I learned a lot from this video: in case I decided to sell an app on any store, I'd better contact my lawyer to get advised on where and how to incorporate my company.
I don't know if it can be easily resolved by incorporating in another country, but the difficulties of an international litigation should discourage trolls.
Ban software patents!
I'm told, you may be put to trial in East Texas, if you're selling your goods or services there. So, why not stop selling to East Texas and let them settle the resulting collision of interests themselves?
I imagine if in future somebody gets such a patent lawsuit, they'd just rip up the letter and throw it away. Police comes to carry out court orders because they decided in absence? "Sorry officer, the reason you're here is just patent bullshit." - "Oh well, I won't lift a finger for these idiots. Sorry for bothering you, have a nice day!"
Or a more extreme reaction: already in this thread, a couple of people are fantasizing about violence, hiring a hitman and so on. I realize it is mostly meant jokingly, but self-justice is another effect of a justice system that's lost legitimacy.
Rule-of-law is a great thing to have, but it only works if these laws are somewhat reasonable and in accord with peoples moral values...
How is this even for real - why is Google not putting an end to it?
Posted from my Windows Phone 8.1
that would stop it.
But in the meantime, guess I'll just be writing webapps.
But a lawsuit is a civil case, not a criminal case, right?
If that's not a racket, I don't know what is.
We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States.
If you have money, you have the power to legally hold people with less over a barrel. That exploitable inequality is poison for a well functioning society. That is the problem that needs solving.
That being said, patent trolling is obviously a problem, and legislation to fix the problem is making its way through Congress.
or maybe this twitter account
The concepts are there, and a lineage may be traced, but little of the original parts still exists.
This because the basic concepts that define unix allows it to be modular and adaptable.
All of these languages have libraries that produce the same results, the difficulty is mangling the data into the correct input format. Python's list comprehensions are much, much easier to use than MATLAB matrices, R's data frames, Java's ArrayLists, etc. I'd advise any new graduate student to learn how to plug data into traditional programs, but save yourself a headache and perform your data manipulation in Python. Eventually you can take the leap and do the analysis in Python as well.
Plenty of free high quality documentation and learning materials around R (just read anything by Hadley)
Package manager. Super easy to find, install, and start using packages.
Open source / Free
Large community of users
Extensive usage by the stats community. (If a new algorithm comes out, chances R there will be an R implementation)
Easy to build and share your own packages via Github.
Easy to link C++ code to your packages.
I love R, but something about how the language feels syntactically, it's not as pleasurable programming wise compared to something like the Python data stack. But with all of the above advantages, I don't see myself switching to anything else in the future for my data science work, unless I have a really pressing need to. The other thing is that the language is so damn popular that the useR conference was sold out in pre-reg. rounds.. Seriously guys, stop using and learning about R so I can get in the conference....
It doesn't seem to have a package manager. Could it be that simple?
Finally! This is very encouraging, that such an excellent free software package is in such high demand. From what I've used it for, it worked very well. It's great for quickly creating nice-looking graphs and plots.
2. How do the authors unambiguously search for 'R'? Monocharacter language names are difficult search keys. (C, B, S, R)
Curiosity got the best of me here: I had to look this up in the docs to see how a linux syscall that takes 3 parameters could possibly take 11 parameters. Spoiler alert: they are used for async callbacks, filtering by name, allowing only partial results, and the ability to progressively scan with repeated calls.
Say what? The NT kernel doesn't restore caller-saved registers at syscall exit? This seems extraordinary, because unless it either restores them or zaps them then it will be in danger of leaking internal kernel values to userspace - and if it zaps them then it might as well save and restore them, so userspace won't need to.
Is there a list of these syscalls somewhere? It would be cool to check it against the recent Linux API compatibility paper [0, 1].
: http://oscar.cs.stonybrook.edu/api-compat-study/: http://www.oscar.cs.stonybrook.edu/papers/files/syspop16.pdf
What about applications that hook to X Windows or do things like opening the frame buffer device. I've got a messaging application that can be compiled for both Windows and Linux and depending on the OS, I compile a different transport layer. Under Linux heavy use of epoll is used which is very different than how NT handles Async I/O - especially with sockets. So my application's "transport driver" is either compiling an NT code base using WinSock & OVERLAPPED IO or a Linux code base using EPOLL and pthreads.
Over all it seems like a nice to have but I'm struggling to extract any real benefit.
Can anyone offer up some real good use cases I may be overlooking?
 http://www.pcworld.com/article/3038652/windows/microsoft-kil... https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/bridges/ios
Edit: Now I am puzzled as to why this got downvoted?
Emphasis is mine. I wonder if this is something that cygwin could (ab)use. Also I wonder why they would need this undocumented call.
They should probably just buy Canonical. That would put the shivers into Google, properly.
I wish Windows/MS would abandon NT and just create a Linux distro. I don't know anyone who particularly likes NT and jamming multiple systems together seems like an awful idea.
Windows services and Linux services likely won't play nice together (think long file paths created by Linux services and other incompatibilities), for them to be 100% backward compatible they need to not only make Windows compatible with the things Linux outputs, but Linux compatible with the things windows services output, and to keep the Linux people from figuring out how to use Windows on Linux systems they'd need to make a lot of what they do closed source.
So I don't see a Linux+Windows setup being deployed for production. It's cool for developers, but even then you can't do much real world stuff that utilizes both windows and Linux. If you're only taking advantage of one system then whats the point of having two?
I went ahead and made the switch to Linux since I was trying to make Windows behave just like Linux.
Why run a Linux Application/binary on a windows server OS? When you can just run it on Linux OS and get better performance & stability.
I would still like to hear what the author of the post recommends as a course of action- Maybe he can write a followup post that provides these details to clarify this.
I last dabbled in image processing research around 2011. Probably most of the papers i read during the previous 5 years were small little epsilon papers that added no real value. I did some work in other fields and noticed a similar trend there. I always attributed it to the trend of PhDs being pumped through the system in ever greater numbers and the need for researchers to publish a paper every few months.
The fundamental problem is that funding is given to those who promise the best outcome ("device that can recognize cancer") rather than the truth ("Where is the data located in an HBM").
Now, engineering work isn't bad, but today's university still has relics from a previous generation, like research papers. Hence, we're left with a bunch of research papers with little scientific content. The only fix I can think of is to offer useful alternatives to the PhD and prefer or mandate other markers of achievement like patents instead of research papers.
I guess I'm too soft-hearted to be successful as a C-level manager, but I find the pragmatic, calculating nature of this approach appalling, even though I agree with many parts of the argument.
I had recently listened to the Planet Money episode about her work (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/28/435583328/episo...), at the end she was let go from Netflix abruptly, too, probably using the practice she installed. Maybe I was biased with a Robespierrean expectation of karma returning, but she sounded like that was quite a blow to her, despite all her earlier rationalistic rhetoric. Now, reading it again, brought to mind this:
"It couldn't be called ungentle But how thoroughly departmental"
Now I'm no executive, but is there a reason the blindingly obvious strategy of investing the money they're clearly willing to expend in training so that this individual's skills did fill a need they had?
These are some truly evil people. Apparently they can only target prepaid cards with this thing, which unsurprisingly will disproportionately affect people with lower incomes (the "unbanked"). According to the manufacturer's FAQ :
Intel and ERAD-Recovery will only retrieve balances from open loop prepaid debit cards. Debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed using the ERAD-Intel or ERAD-Recovery system.
Law enforcement already depends heavily upon lower income neighborhoods to justify their existence, and upon criminal convictions of poor people that can't defend themselves to keep up demand for prison and jail guards. Now they want to take the money of those they can't arrest, knowing that their targets cannot afford to hire lawyers to get it back.
State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we've already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing the system. "We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said.
So what would this device look like? Is it performing ACH or wire transfer transactions? Or is this just sending card information to the company, which then automates the state government's garnishment process?
I'll be interested to get the full story when details are available.
I'm glad there's some pushback from the state legislature!
Prosecutors are valued by the number of wins, not by how many innocent people are spared the gauntlet of the American justice system.
Prisons (especially private prisons) are rewarded for high recidivism rates, instead of being punished for wasting taxpayer money on an expensive and brutal daycare.
If the state does badly enough it can get sued. So the taxpayers foot the bill while the offenders are free to do as they do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: prevent this kind of garbage from happing without consequence by mandating docked wages/pension benefits to pay for all or part of lawsuit damages. Change the incentives and people will change themselves.
>"If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized.
... Legit reason? How am I supposed to prove where every cent came from? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Given the low-threshold for seizure and how we've seen civil-asset forfeiture exercised by law enforcement, that's terrifying.
* ERAD is taking 7.7% of all funds seized.
* Anywhere between 9.95 and 14.95 per each virtual terminal used to scan for the funds.
* $1000-ish per physical terminal used.
First you have civil-asset forfeiture that let's police seize money from you when you are carrying large amounts of cash (with a generous false positive rate potentially disastrous to victims).
Now to get around that, you could try handling everything by card or bank transaction (unless you're one of the unfortunate few without access to a bank account due to low credit rating or other legitimate reasons). And now they can seize that too?
That's not ripe for abuse, that's designed for abuse.
As a non-American, what's wrong with your country?
Oh, so if I have a card in someone else's name, you'll charge it, thus causing someone who doesn't even know about it to lose?
Any lawyers here want to weigh in on whether this would be identity theft/credit card fraud/etc on the part of the police and hence illegal? Isn't scanning/charging a card without authorization illegal?
1) Police departments cannot keep anything they seize (or proceeds from its sale/liquidation). Incentives matter. If the funds need to go somewhere, they should be assigned by lottery so they're not a solution to anyone's problems. Or, perhaps have them go to the public defender's office, which is going to need them because...
2) There absolutely has to be due process here. "Civil" is a loophole-technicality if the reason for the seizure is a suspicion that the asset was involved in a crime. PDs should be provided for those who don't have their own counsel, and burden of proof should be on the state.
(I know, sending the funds to the PDs office could create a conflict of interest. A straightforward arrangement wouldn't work; there'd have to be a likely state-level layer of indirection and some stipulations incentivizing the hiring of more staff rather than inflating existing staff salaries much beyond the current exorbitant premiums PDs command. :/ )
I'm a very law-and-order guy, but I have zero sympathy for police departments who pull shenanigans like this and then bitch and moan that their communities don't respect them. This gives limitless ammo to critics who want to paint police as noncaring, profit-driven thugs, probably endangering officers' lives in the process.
What an utterly despicable, contemptible move. It's simply not defensible in any way.
1) Does anyone know who came up with these "civil asset forfeitures"? (Personally, they seem most un-civil to me.)
2) Can any of you defend America as "the land of the free" when more of the population are in prison than in almost any other country in the word and the police not only have the power to strip you of your property and assets without even needing a solid reason, but can shoot you dead and barely get a slap on the wrist?
Not having a go at America or Americans, but it seems to me that those who truly believe it to be a land of the free are deluding themselves.
[edit: damn keyboard]
At some point you just rely on biometrics for every transaction, it turns into an automated shakedown scheme or you just learn to avoid the state of Oklahoma.
It's doubtful that local or state PDs have enough political pull or money to battle banks over this through the court system.
It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes."
This is truly disgusting. I have no words.
Like how does the officer know how much you have and how much is 'appropriate' to confiscate?
I wonder if it does a series of authorizations looking for some sort of upper limit to figure out how much money is in the account and then they determine what to take from that?
Either way, this goes way beyond reason for what a trooper should be able to do on the side of a road during a traffic stop.
I think that might even be worse then the police being able to sieze all of you money.
If everybody else around you accepts to get arbitrarily molested in the butt, you either accept it too, or else you move out.
I have personally chosen to move out. Unfortunately, you can see the United Nations, USAID, international NGOs and similar organizations coming over here to convince the locals to accept similar abuse from their own government, by advocating "the rule of law". Of course, there are also the Christian organizations advocating to the locals to offer their other cheek to such thefting police.
Since I cannot keep "moving away", at some point I will have no other option than to finally make a stand.
The Art of War says that the secret of success consists in never letting the enemy choose the time and the place. You must always choose the time and the place by yourself. Therefore, it suggests that it is us who must schedule forceful attacks against the police. Seriously, I am all for it.
Serious question, where does the money go and how is it spent? Who is it spent by?
We do have a process for the confiscation of proceeds of crime here in Australia. I believe the money goes into a big pot controlled by a federal government department (https://www.afsa.gov.au/ ie not the police) to be spent on community projects. I am sure that there is plenty of scope for waste etc but if nothing else the system would seem to do a good job of removing any financial incentives for the police to seize stuff.
This defies all logic and is a clear example of the corrupt state this country is in (USA).
After it turned out it's legit news:
2. So why they simply aren't maxing out people credit cards too?I mean, by the same flawed logic, it would stop crime if people are more in debt. You can of course prove you aren't going to use your credit card for further crimes and have the money returned.
Then again, I should stop giving people ideas.
While the implications here are certainly pretty creepy, this seems more like something to use in investigations of money laundering, etc.
- Well my grandma saved it for me when I was a child. - Prove it. - Sorry but she's dead and I moved it to a new bank account two years ago. - Yeah sure.
This is just disgusting.
"No, officer, you may not see my wallet. I do not consent to a search of myself, my vehicle, or my property. I furthermore, refuse to have any further conversation with you. May I go now, or am I under arrest?"
Works every time for me.
If your cash is seized the police will go ahead and keep the full amount less the 7.7% fee. So what happens if the person is proven innocent? Does the police dept have to use its own funding to repay the 7.7% fee?
This seems unlikely to me (but that is based on no facts). Or does the company have to repay the money? It would seem like they could legally say they preformed a service and should not be required to refund the money.
Sadly it looks like if you are seen as "potential guilty" and your assets are seized, even if you are proven innocent you still lost 7.7% of your money. Then tack on legal fees associated with proving your innocent.....
This is the rich looking after the rich in the most corrupt and reprehensible way possible, see how this is going to work out for you as resentment grows in the population roots.
I am dumbfounded by this statement.
The so called presumption of guilt. I am sure everyone has the proofs and doesn't need the money while they are held by the police.
That said seizing cash whether physical notes or electronic must be subject to due process and a court order.
aka Guilty until proven innocent.
To me the USA was the place where Neil Armstrong lived, it was the country that gave me so much that I was thankful for, it was a country where the words "Freedom of speech" ruled above everything. To me it was the country I wanted to be in if I had a wish.
Little by little, that idea I had of the united states is being changed, may be its my fault since I idealised the USA too much. May be its the news I read about, large scale surveillance, government officials who has no regard for civil liberties, people more powerful than the FBI, people above the law, power crazed security guards at airports etc etc.
I really really dislike this, wish I would once again get to believe that there is a place where people are treated right.
Now they're asking to see my entire wallet?! I'm assuming we're all well within our rights to refuse to hand over our wallets?
To steal and murder! The correct police motto.
Wow, so it's now safest to travel around the country with your encrypted Bitcoin hid steganographically....
It's gotten so I feel bad about it. I even apologize. Each time, I think "Well that's it, there's nothing that could go beyond this."
Several years ago I sold a small lot which had an office on it. The guy who bought it paid cash. Cash is kinda unusual for this kind of transaction, so I asked him where he got it. He told me that he was a general contractor and had been saving for over ten years.
Then he told me that the previous month, while he was moving his savings to his mom's house, he got pulled over for a bad taillight.
They almost took all of his money. Holy cow! This was my introduction to Civil Asset Forfeiture.
There are many parts of this story that are amazing. Right away I note that if you're truly wealthy? You have nothing to fear. You have enough assets to pay the one lawyer who golfs with the local DA and get this thing fixed quickly. But if you're not? If you're like my friend saving up for a large purchase? Good freaking luck.
Read an article once from a former LE guy. I remember one of his points. He said that cops are hunters. They hunt bad guys. We are their prey.
As we are finding out, the definition of "bad guy" is wonderfully malleable. Just about anybody can be one. The more political power you have (whether through contacts, as a politician, or by having money), the less likely you are to be one.
There has been a long tradition in the states of assuming the best when dealing with the local constable. They have tough jobs, usually the training isn't terribly difficult, it's a good spot for people who like guns and violence but want to be one of the good guys.
This tradition is coming to a close. While the constable himself might be a nice enough, stand-up guy, the system as a whole is terribly corrupt and overbearing. I might go so far as to say evil.
This cannot continue. Reforms are desperately needed.
Literally the opposite of how presumed innocence is supposed to work. Furthermore, good luck mounting a decent case now that they have all your money.
Hopefully the incredulity of this will put a spotlight on civil forfeiture and end it once and for all.
But it probably will take a decade to get to the supreme court and this will ruin lives in the meanwhile.
And then there is who is going to fill the next three supreme court judge slots and how they feel about "the police can do no wrong" authoritarianism.
Absolutely terrible. Finally bitcoin et al have a legitimate use - protecting your property from grubby government hands.
Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prove that i have the right to have them. OK = backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people that keep voting for these types of idiots.
If only Thatcherism / Reaganism never happened... (and Laffer, Friedman and all the other related right wing propaganda that's been catapulted down our throats)
I suppose things will eventually get bad enough that people will eventually realize "Everything that demented old man proposed was wrong?!?" (demented as in literal "alzheimer's patient")
I suspect this author reads HN :) If anyone was curious, the thread where Saguaro wood's solid density was determined can be found here:
> NEW: The guesstimate of 300 kg/m^3 for Saguaro density in the V2 raws was probably wrong. I have a 6g piece of Saguaro wood with a volume of approximately 14 cm^3, which indicates that the density of Saguaro wood is approximately 430 kg/m^3. This number appears very reasonable when compared to all the other densities I have researched. I have more ~1 ft pieces of Saguaro rib wood than I know what to do with right now and I'm more than willing to ship them to people willing to do further research on the matter, or those who wish to duplicate my experiments.
In fact, there are two approximately 1" saguaro wood cubes sitting on my desk directly in front of me at this very moment.
Here's an example of a story that happened to me. https://www.reddit.com/r/dwarffortress/comments/1mb0cw/the_s... Note: this story is in NO way embellished by me. Everything described there was actually fully simulated within the game.
If anyone is interested in the game, I recommend grabbing the Lazy Newb Pack which comes with a few utilities that will make your experience slightly less infuriating.
Briefly, it's a very experienced DF player trying to conquer a frozen volcano who has written up his exploits in narrative form. Fun read and will give you a good idea of what DF is allabout.
Edit: was expecting something like this, for those of you now interested in home-castle-building-stories: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280764/Farmer-told-...
I have played quite a bit of the game and it is amazing despite its insane and sometimes frustrating UI.
It takes a year to build a wooden hall large enough for most of the workshops, on one side of the river, while on the other side digging out a collapse to drop soil into the acquifer. A lovely wooden bridge and wooden tile road is the meeting area to keep the dwarves happy while they have no stone.
The dwarf with the only pickaxe falls into the watery pit under the collapse and drowns. I have to wait half a year to trade for another while the dwarves live on fish and berries in their hall. They are haunted by the ghost of the miner, as there is no stone for for a engraved slab in the graveyard. Cherry blossoms litter the ground, and blow into the half-finished excavation.
A crafter is possessed and wants stone, the one thing we don't have. What little the drwarves traded for had to go to other uses. A great pile of wooden crafts is building up. Just as well there are no elven neighbors. The crafter becomes melancholy, and wanders about the fisherdwarves, watching them. Sometimes he stands in the middle of the river.
After trading a new pick, the next miner knocks out the remaining support, and the collapse happens. But, alas, the aquifer is two levels thick! Only one level is smushed dry with the collapsed soil. We trade for rock, build a new structure in the now open watery pit. Two dwarves fall in that season during the construction, adding more drowned victims and wailing ghosts.
The construction of stone walls in the pit is knocked down at the cost of yet another dwarf - yet it isn't enough to breach the aquifer. Woe. The pit is now littered with rock and bodies and materials.
There is only one other thing to do; build a stack of wooden pumps, stairs, landings down into the pit, and an aquaduct to the river. Pump it dry and send in dwarfs to build walls and lock away the water.
All of this and still not at the point of the exercise - to raise a great hollow tower of stone over the river and a deep pit of stairs beneath, and tear down the hall of wood for charcoal. So it continues.
Back in the early 2000's, in the course of clinical practice I encountered some unexpected outcomes of treatment which correlated to a particular, if unexpected diagnosis. I tried to find info about this, but to my surprise a thorough search of the literature came up empty.
I felt a duty to report my observations. Putting it into a formal paper was difficult for me to accomplish, but did get it organized. Believing in the idea of open access, I decided to submit to a newly established open-access publisher.
Peer review did not go smoothly. Because the subject had never been reported before, at least in a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers expressed doubt about the reality of the data. One "peer" was determined to disparage the report to the extent of making glaringly inaccurate, distorted comments about the nature of the condition in the subjects of my report. After a rigorous defense of data and procedure the editors decided to ignore the negative review and the report was published.
Novelty is not only apparent in terms of methodology or cross-discipline application of ideas, but also arises when attempting to share previously unreported observations. The closed-mindedness of many in the academic community (who are the predominant peer reviewers) is apparently a pervasive problem in the sciences, and possibly endemic in academic culture in general.
I publish "Gravitational constant is actually (some slightly more specific thing)", with extension of existing methods. Someone sees that and already will be convinced just by the title!
I publish "Gravity is actually caused by micro-gnomes pushing things around with walkie-talkes", and it's pretty novel. I don't really have existing work to base it on.
Why should anyone believe my work has any basis in reality then? The burden of proof is on me to convince people. Fool-proof methodology, simple explanations. Bringing it back to current understanding helps. But I'm the person saying everything is different, the world owes nothing to me just yet.
Not to mention that the header graph is totally confirmation bias. Yes, you're going to cite the original paper citing the effect you're studying. You probably won't cite most incremental research. Definitionally novel papers that get any traction will collect references.
I actually have an example of my own novel research! I'm the first person to post about a bug with Ubuntu's (at the time) new IME manager on Ask Ubuntu. Turns out there was a real thing (and it wasn't me being silly). So now I have 550 points on Ask Ubuntu because of this question, and get notifications about it all the time.
I have cornered the "Ubuntu 13.10 keyboard bug" citation space. Mainly for being first. And I have gotten extra rewarded for it. Novel papers enjoy the same perks when they get any traction.
- bucketing citations into journals
- building a network of journals with edge weights defined by the number of papers that cite both journals
- Using cosine similarity between journals (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarity_(network_science)#C... ) in this network to define how banal it is to cite them together
- For a new paper, they recompute this matrix and define novelty by summing 1-banality over the new edges
I don't know if their method reduces to a standard thing from network science (eg. betweenness, centrality, ?) but I would not be surprised if it did.
A closely-related paper with a totally-different writing style did something like this a few years back:
"Citing for High Impact" https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/citations-jcdl10.pd...
(To be clear, I believe that the focus on citations is stupid for other reasons, but this does not seem to be a failure of the system.)
Optimizing science based on "what do people who want to get tenure want" seems like a great way to be bad at science.
BUT, I live in the constant fear of Google shutting down the service. In fact I'm slowly finding myself skeptical of adopting new Google products because I'm worried it will go away.
Looking at US Cellular's coverage map (https://www.uscellular.com/coverage-map/coverage-indicator.h...), this news won't benefit the sf bay area, but help users in the northwest, northeast, and midwest.
At least its cheap, although I am still grandfathered into my parents' family plan for around $20/month. I think an equivalent individual plan from ATT or Verizon in this area would run over $100, which would be ridiculous for the 3-4 phone calls a month I make.
It isn't dead yet, and I can't really justify the cost.
My parents have a home "up north" (the thumb area of Michigan) and I've had service with both T-Mo and Verizon since I've been spending a lot of time up there. Coverage from VZW/T-Mo, despite being vastly different networks, suffered from a large dead spot in Fort Gratiot and coverage on the property was also terrible (low lying, beach front property results in a very obstructed situation). I switched to T-Mo because I'd pick up Canadian towers on the property with Verizon which would cause me billing problems.
The statements they're making about choosing the best provider from multiple providers is not marketing. I get 4G coverage all the way up to through the most rural areas and can pull a signal on the property (2G, sometimes Canada, but it's there if I need it). T-Mobile and Sprint's network is different enough that no other MVNOs that I know of support both. Because Project Fi does, I get excellent coverage -- where T-Mo lacked, at least in the areas I travel, Sprint has a great signal and my 4G performance is so consistent that I haven't had occasion to even look to see if I'm in LTE or not (that would only happen when the music would stop or a browsing session would die -- "oh, I'm 2G/3G, no wonder!").
Nobody in my family has reliable service except for my wife and I (she's on Fi, now, too). The Wi-Fi features work seamlessly and are much more intelligent than I experienced on T-Mo. Due to one of my APs being wonky at home, Project Fi automatically uses 4G for calls when I'm attached to it. When I'm connected to my properly functioning AP, it uses WiFi (internet works on both, but no VoIP service from mobile phones has ever worked on the one). With T-Mo, I had to turn WiFi calling off because I'd just stop being able to make/take calls when connected to the broken router. It hands off calls without issue, as well (there's a brief period where audio is dead when this happens but I usually don't notice it).
It's a well thought out service and the pricing was perfect for me. I'm on WiFi 99% of the time and my mobile data is often below 1G/mo, however, with the work I do I can have a month or two a year where my data goes well beyond 6GB, so I always kept my plan at that level and just donated that money to T-Mo/Verizon. The prices aren't the lowest in the area when pre-paid offerings are included, but with the service being what it is, I'd pay more for this kind of reliability.
 T-Mo doesn't charge for Canadian data or texts and allowed WiFi calling (I'm not sure if Verizon does, yet, or not) so this resolved the problem for me. Coverage wasn't as good, especially a few years ago with 4G, but it was good enough.
My hope is to be automating a large amount of the review in the next few months, however I think this is a good argument for never having it be fully automatic. Having a human sanity check submissions isn't a terrible idea if we can keep the workload down.
Certainly this doesn't prevent a malicious author from posting a legitimate package and then changing the contents to be malicious, but that can be somewhat solved by turning off automatic updates.
http://incolumitas.com/data/thesis.pdf section 5 "Practical implications". Just wanted to point out that in case you skipped it it's worth a read, some interesting proposals there that are worth discussing with package manager maintainers.
I particularly like the preemptive approach of auto-blacklisting common typos by simply monitoring the number of times a specific unexisting package is requested over time (5.10). So if a lot of people regularly attempt to install the unexisting package "reqeusts", it could signal that it's a common typo and should be blacklisted to prevent malicious use in the future. False positives could always be sorted out manually by communicating with the package manager maintainers.
I think that this clearly falls under the heading 'naming issue.' People know what they want, but do not enter it properly.
I can't think of a 100% off-hand, which isn't surprising, because it's a hard problem.
pmontra's suggestion to use typo blacklisting ain't a bad idea. Maybe some sort of reputation-per-name could help?
It's pretty mind blowing how big of a blindspot package installers are. I guess running everything inside a e.g. Docker container/VM would be a partial interim solution for the paranoid?
It does raise the barrier to entry, but it would prevent typosquatting and regular namesquatting.
EDIT: Does any major package manager provide a "did you mean" functionality, offering a list of actual package names similar to what you typed?
Also, doesn't point out that the bigger threat is that this is wormable.
I wonder what kind of steps we can take to prevent this risk.
That way authors can continue to use any name they want, and the emphasis is on letting installers know that they might be installing the wrong package.
I think most languages these days are a bit smarter and avoid this beginner mistake (for various reasons).
Ones dev environment should be a place where remote code execution is a high probablity and we need better tools to partition that from high value data.
* Perhaps many of those are automated build systems, which would also explain the high number of systems with admin access (for example, if you use travis without docker, every build runs in a clean vm with admin access).
* People download one package and install it multiple times? Seems unlikely
Any other ideas?
but even this just tries to put the problem under carpet. you could still for example have requests package which just installs request package, works as expected, just sends request/response to your own server from time to time. ie. when there's http basic auth used only.
I suspect I'll be buying far fewer apps if there's a mass movement from a purchase model to a subscription model among app developers. I'm perfectly happy to pay $20-30 for an app (even a simple app) if it provides value and I'm happy to pay for major upgrades or additional content/features, but I won't pay $20-30 a year just to maintain the ability to launch an app on an ongoing basis.
In addition, after years of terrible search in the app store, coupling search improvements with search-based ads is just a kick in the shins.
Clearly a subscription model isn't for many apps - probably most apps. But it was right for us, as we've been maintaining and improving Zombies, Run! for over four years now, and every week we add new content. With a subscription model, we only get paid if people decide we're good enough to commit to over a long period of time. Since we're about helping people exercise, I think that's fair enough.
I don't see a reason to subscribe for apps that are one-time pay and periodic long term use. There is a fine line here that developers will have to be cautious not to cross. A lot of apps have no reason to be subscription model, but the prospect of recurring revenue is too tempting.
Edit: On the other hand, this is totally awesome for services and products that already offer subscriptions on other platforms or on the web, like online streaming, education, and as someone mentioned here, tools like Sketch.
Also for Search Ads (Coming this fall): https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search-ads/
For the first year of a subscription Apple will maintain its 70 / 30 revenue share; after one year, the new 85 percent / 15 percent revenue share will kick in (applied per subscriber). The new app subscription model will roll out to developers this fall, though if app makers have subscribers theyve already retained for a year, the new revenue split starts June 13th."
That's a big change.
Google cornered Web search. Reaction: As they own the walled garden, Apple completely control search within the App Store. Adwords owns Web Advertisitng. Reaction: Apple will launch paid search in the App Store.Companies like Netflix, Blizzard, and Salesforce have direct lines to their customer's wallets through subscriptions. Reaction: Apple will launch subscriptions in App Store and take a cut from their developers.
I don't see any of this as a surprise. In fact, I see it as Apple playing to their own strengths. The web is too open a platform for Apple, and history has shown they don't succeed when they don't have control.
about subscriptions - i don't see any reason a developer would share the subscriptions revenue with apple while they sale it for free and make in-app subscriptions.
I also strongly dislike that they know that x% of users after signing up will barely use the service and it's essentially free money. I know this is why they do it, and I won't support companies for trying to take advantage of users.
It is sad that Apple only took action now, after years of requests and complains by indie developers. Now that app boom is over, I doubt this App Store changes will have any impact.
1. Fix app discovery
2. Fix app search before putting search ads. e.g. if your app name has a symbol in it searching by app name will NOT return your app in the search results.
3. App review times can be further reduced by automating the review process
4. Try it before you buy it option
5. Better UX
Credit card fees come out of their share and those could very well account for the bulk of the 15%. Even if Apple pays nothing in payment processor markup, there is a fixed minimum "interchange" cost that everyone has to pay (even Walmart). For "ecommerce" it's:
Credit: $0.10 + 1.8-2.4%
Debit: $0.21 + 0.05%
Those 10-21 cent minimums make a big dent in smaller transactions. For a monthly recurring charge of $1.99, already 6% of that goes to credit card interchange. That leaves a 9% gross margin for Apple (4% if debit).
At $0.99, Apple's margin drops to 3% on credit, and they lose money on a debit card.
Now, there is a "small ticket" interchange category that one would hope these transactions would qualify for. That's just $0.04 + 1.65%. But it says it requires a swipe, so I'm not sure. From a fraud risk standpoint Apple Pay should be treated better than a swipe, but I'm not sure if the rules have caught up yet.
If the supposed cognitive load of people for using apps is around 26-27, then is there an economic load that says that people will max at say--- $60/month--- in total app subscriptions in the US? And this number could change drastically for users in other countries based on fluctuating dollar values.
I wonder if they added capacity or dropped review quality - so far we haven't seen a drop in quality and they are able to catch problems at about the same rate.
How are free trials not a "better experience for the user"? I just don't understand Apple's paranoia when it comes to free trial versions.
Maybe not sustainable, but hopefully keep you in the black until the next project.
1. Rolling deploys - right now releasing on iOS is scary and big bang, combined with the review process it keeps devs up at night worrying.2. AB Testing on images and copy - you can only update this on each (scary) release, so you can't learn what works quickly.
Just give me the TL;DR already please!
Brace for the shitstorm
My comment on reddit:https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/4n62ny/app_store_20/
This is the exact opposite of what Apple should do. App startups in their first year need all the revenue they can get. After the first year, most of those companies have either reached profitability or gone out of business.
This policy is going to mean more revenue for the large, established app companies, like Instagram or Snapchat, and less revenue for any potential usurpers. They're effectively suppressing innovation and locking in any monopolies they've helped to build.
At the end of every one I ask: "Is there anyone else you think I should talk to?" and "Do you currently have any opportunities at your company for me?". Rinse repeat.
I guarantee investing in 30 informational interviews will yield huge dividends vs. 30 career fairs, a personal pitch deck, starting a blog, dusting off your resume, or God Forbid: applying to jobs through Linkedin.
I wrote a free guide on this if anyone is interested, would love feedback.
I'd recommend their advice to anyone, particularly people who think they might be in the wrong job, and want to think about how to best spend their working lives.
I find that most new grads' biggest problem is not getting the first phone screen.
I could have really used this guide when relocating cross-country. Surprise, the interviews and subsequent offers I got were from direct referrals from my personal network.
I'm the author of the piece. If you know any other good resources or statistics we should incorporate, I'm keen to hear about them. If you disagree with something, feedback is very welcome.
After becoming unemployed, with enough savings to sustain myself for a long search, I then faced a significant family trauma that required me to move away from Boston (where I had lived and worked for most of the past decade), back home to do basically full-time care for the family situation -- located in a very rural part of the Midwest where e.g. I don't even have reliable access to internet connectivity here.
Despite this, I've managed to start a newsletter/website for one of my interests (by teaching myself simple usage of the Hakyll Haskell-based static site tool), and start a pedagogical side project using Cython to write some stuff using fused types and typed memoryviews. It has been utterly demoralizing to try to do these projects in the midst of my family situation and the lack of resources here in this rural area.
I've done literally hundreds of phone interviews, had 7 different on-site interviews, and received offers from 2 of them (both of which I rejected because they asked me to accept compensation/benefits packages that were substantially worse than what I had when last working).
Most interviews have been OK, but I reject a lot of companies if I pick up on red flags, especially related to start-up culture bullshit or poor work/life balance, to protect myself from the insanity that led to this in the first place.
In my experience, tech hiring is just an unbelievable shitstorm of irrationality. I've been rejected for over-engineering (because I included tests and wrote a necessary sorted dict data structure for a take home submission), for not "focusing enough on product" when submitting statistical analysis code for a data science take home test, for not remembering an obscure fact about GCDs and integer lattice points (even though I had correctly solved two difficult coding problems already in that interview), for not having X years of on-the-job experience in any one of Hadoop, Spark, various DevOps tools, and web frameworks (I am a statistician with lots of scientific computing experience, never applied to positions that list DevOps or web development as important needs, even though I'm happy to learn them on the job).
At this point, my extended professional network has basically given up on me. My grad school friends have recommended me for jobs with biotech companies, Facebook, fairly prestigious finance companies, with endorsements like "he is the best Python programmer I know, and it's not even his primary skill set" -- most reject me immediately because of the gap on my resume.
I don't have any more people to ask for job leads. I scour Indeed.com for hours every morning, which is extremely demoralizing. I have a reasonably significant amount of Stack Overflow rep (> 17000) and joined their career site long ago but have never found a single realistic lead since it's dominated by web framework jobs. Most employers (or their needlessly combative tech hiring staff, anyway) seem to make a point of saying cutting comments to me about my university degrees (two Ivy degrees) and my Stack Overflow rep -- even though I don't ever try to project pride about these things and fully welcome and prefer to be judged solely by my talents and do not want any form of laurel-resting, especially not based on "prestigious" degrees (though, to be fair, I did work extremely hard in university and accomplished many things that now seemingly no one cares about).
Recently I got rejected by Snapchat literally less than 11 minutes after submitting my resume and application through their online application site. It was a form letter rejection in 11 minutes. I started to wonder if maybe the application portal just sends them a Snapchat photo of my resume, so they have to accept or reject before it gets deleted. But I'm so cynical by now that it wasn't really funny.
Practically the only ways I can stay motivated after such a long and soul-crushing spell of unemployment have been focusing a ton on personal exercise, focusing on my family and continuing to help them, and focusing on creative efforts that are 100% not related to software or coding.
The degree of burnout frightens me greatly, but currently the financial demands placed on me by my family's situation are so great that as I no longer can afford any form of health insurance at all while unemployed, I cannot even see a counselor or anything to help process my feelings.
Much like this elementary school parable I read where the Sun and Wind have a competition to see who can get a man to remove his jacket, I am like the man when the Wind character just blows harder and harder -- he just pulls the jacket tighter and tighter.
The more that interfacing with the labor market causes me to deal with bullshit start-up culture, the less willing I am to take a job. I simply will not compromise my standards, even literally to my own destruction. It reminds me of a David Foster Wallace quote: "I had kind of a midlife crisis at twenty which probably doesnt augur well for my longevity."
I've been surviving this long enough to know there just is no answer to the problem of seeking a job that actually makes your life better, certainly not here in the Hacker News echo chamber -- just look at all of the Who Is Hiring threads, where, for my given skill area, there has been somewhere around a 1% relevance rate (just try searching for NumPy).
I'm not looking for encouragement, sympathy, or (more likely here) unsympathetic market-perspective brass tacks criticism. I just figured it was worth sharing.
How is someone that values their privacy supposed to get a job or even break in to having a job where they make connections to peers?
This is false.
> I find popups annoying too
I do not believe you, if you did you would know that often the first response to popup annoyance is to close the window.
What do your analytics actually say happens when that popup shows? It will show that I was reading your article up until that appeared, then I entered garbage for an email and closed the window.
Will my email GoFfirstname.lastname@example.org be counted as a success or failure for your popup?
Bill Gates is correct in his assessment, it's way more profitable to raise chickens than, say, cows. You need to have a bigger barn for cows, you need to do all the hay thing, which is very time consuming and demands a lot of extra work just for feeding said cows, you need to pay someone to take care of the cows when they go out to eat in the summer on the communal field. It's easier to just barter your chickens' eggs for some milk or cheese, that's at least what my mom does.
It's also quite profitable to grow beans and cabbage. They preserve well over winter well into spring and you can also use them for bartering.
As an anecdote, when I visited rural China a couple of years back I asked my friends who grew up there why, if most people had one chicken, they didn't simply grow a few more?
The response was "you don't know what it was like back then. In the Mao attitude people would say ... 'who are you to have two chickens when everyone else only has one' " ... which was enough social pressure to keep everyone to one chicken, no matter how much that contributed to malnourishment.
I'm not proposing the same social attitudes are at play in these regions, but there may be other non-obvious contexts discouraging people from getting started with a flock.
For some scenarios I could imagine an initiative like this helping to break through inertia and change norms.
Giving a flock of chickens to desperately poor families sounds like a great idea that will pay dividends for many years. However, I can't help but be reminded of the many charitable programs that sound great but end up having very unusual unintended consequences that often defeat the purpose or make it worse. Anyone care to speculate as to some unintended consequences this project may have?
$5 is 3.45 and I can buy a (dead, plucked, gutted, packaged, delivered to my door) chicken in the UK for 2.95.
I realise the local supply's much lower because my Sainsbury's chicken is grown in a cage in a factory somewhere, but nonetheless, I didn't expect that.
 I presume USD is the currency in the video, since 5 of the local currency is 0.006
edit: looks like I left the page open for longer than I thought - this discussion happened elsewhere hours ago. Apologies.
They need lots of water and shade, so make a continuous drip somewhere in the shade.
Domestic cats don't mess with full grown chickens, and in my experience they leave the chicks alone too if they are fully feathered and about pigeon size. The cats eat pigons on a regular basis, but they let the chicks run around and seem to enjoy them. In the daytime it's common to see the cats and chickens laying around in the shade within a foot of each other. Racoons like chicken, and they are good climbers, but the chickens just make lots of noise and fly off if one gets too close. By then I have my paintball gun out and the Racoons learn quickly to get dinner elsewhere. I'm constantly surprised about how smart they are, if they know they are not allowed in a spot they will wait for you to go away and then rush over. If you catch them in the act, they freak out and run off back to their allotted area. I find small firecrackers a good way to tell them "stay away". They learn quickly.
Most of my chickens are good flyers, they can easily jump up to a perch 5ft above the ground and then into a tree from there. They could also easily fly over my fence and exit the yard, but they _never_ do.
I wish I had started years ago, the eggs are fantastic.
I know that you can buy baby chicks from an incubator for egg laying purposes for like 3 euro or less in rural western Europe. Breeds meant to be harvested for their meat cost even less.
I plant kangkong. Initial capital is 1usd, about 300 stems. harvesting biweekly, i get 2600% roi. That's divident part.
I can clone the kangkong by cutting and replant cut stems. It's multiplying the capital part.
Similarly with chicken, one can eat dividend (eggs) and multiplying base (breeding/'cloning')
with cash only, i cannot get good dividend (say, by buying bond); much less luck with cloning cash legally.
Extrapolating to basic income, observe that poverty is lifted fast if the cash is invested in high roi activities (like entrepreneurship) that grow and scale fast.
It's the type of activity that matters more than the cash.
Shouldn't the number of people raising chickens have already reached a market equilibrium?
What is this, some sort of gamification to get people to read and watch more content on the gates website?
However, if he really gives a flock of chickens to a bunch of families in need, won't that reduce their monetary value over time?
If every family has chickens, the monetary incentive isn't there for others to purchase them, or the higher supply will squash demand and drive the price down.
There's still the health benefit and it's obviously a great initiative.
I also remember reading about a rabbit raising program in the Philippines several years back, but I can't find a reference to it.
-1 x Coop (self-made from scavenged wood, home store bought wood, wire, and hinges) ~$400-5 x laying chickens ~$100 (Chicks are cheaper, but you pay to feed them for N months before they lay, and they need special care. Even then, some died or got sick and quit laying)
So let's call it a $500 initial investment. Mine laid roughly 12 eggs a week. Near me, we pay $5 for a dozen farm-fresh eggs. So it would take ~100 weeks to pay off my investment, not taking into account the ~20/mo for feed, bedding(hay), wormer, and time spent fooling with them. Time-wise, in addition to building the coop, etc. I had to let them in/out daily and feed and water them.
They were fun. I like fresh eggs and I'll probably do it again sometime. But a good investment they were not.
Is there any other species that has a similar extremely lopsided number of one sex?
(That's the comment when you answer the quiz correctly.)
What a simplification. I'm all for the chickens, but the quiz and this quiz-answer-comment make it seem a little too easy.
If you want to sell 250 chickens a year you a) need quite a few more than that, b) you need SPACE - and it should provide plenty of free food for hundreds of chickens (so, LOTS of space), and c) the more chickens the higher the risk of disease, and several hundred chickens is <i>a lot</i> of chickens for a poor guy, d) if you don't have LOTS of space you will need to get food from somewhere (and pay for it?).
Edit: just more unintended consequences if so, and it is things like this that make me aspire to be a good neighbor instead of a Manager.
In other words, they will no longer need a wage that also represents the value of eggs, so:-the wage will ultimately be reduced-the portion of their unwaged labor (raising chickens) will increase
People who raise their own chickens can work for less than those who don't.
tldr: A service they could once afford will become unaffordable.
Chickens of the old, roamed the grass, picking little shits that no one could find or eat, growing slowly but steadily, surviving and mating.
Today, they gorge on soybean-B12 juice that was raised on ex-rainforest area.
It's highly unsustainable and ridiculously bad investment.
Bill Gates has previously written about meat and its sustainability and has shown serious lack of understanding of how it all works on a global scale.
Yes, chickens being raised on a field filled with little nutrients only chickens can see is exactly the same as cows being raised in an environment where grass grows around them and climate is pretty stable.
That's not the way Africa or India will get its dosage of meat, and it cannot be done in any way other than massive soybean way (the best source of protein and growth for all living animals).
When we get Africans or Indians on the luxurious flesh, we'll never get them off the bandwagon and the unsustainability of the process will ruin more rainforests, more oceans, more living species and more life.
Absolutely disappointed with Bill.
I guess he's totally oblivious to the dead oceans zones that are caused primarily by animal agriculture.
Or that 90% of the rainforest is being cut primarily for soybean, that is primarily given to the animals in the animal agriculture.
Can't believe a guy was solving a problem this huge and he seems to still be on the meat bandwagon.
A lot of his focus in this product is likely to be around the ease of editing and ease of getting your content out there. For example, it comes with support for instant articles built in. I imagine things like Amp page support will also get built in.
Re the twitter login. It's not something I personally believe in, but I know that Dave has a strong belief in Twitter having potential to be much better as a dev platform of sorts. From identity management, to message delivery. Debatable, but for another time. Just thought I could help provide some context here.
Whether this platform is better than WP, Drupal, or Ghost is all a matter of personal preference honestly. I'm not sure Dave really cares about it that way either. He just wants to keep making the open web more appealing than the closed.
Of everything in this announcement so far, the most intriguing part is his idea of interop with WP and Drupal and other platforms. One thing I can connect it with, is how his posts cross post to FB, and Medium. And he's talked about live editing a bit over there. If I recall right, Dave kind of imagines a future where the editor and the server are different. So I might edit things on my 1999.io server while the updates are all served on a WP or Drupal site. A bit more context to this. In the past Dave also wrote about wishing the Medium.com experience was more like that. Where I could use their incredible editor and publish to anywhere I wanted instead of just medium.com.
The one thing and "maybe" criticism I have of Dave's stuff, is that it is very high level/abstract at times. I've followed his work for years, and it's always taken me a while to digest any of his ideas because there's a lot of imagination that goes unsaid there. In many ways this is like the wonderful work he's done in creating RSS too. RSS alone is simply a germ of an idea which can then be used in so many creative ways. Dave's ideas are very similar. A germ of an idea that he hopes others will pick up on and push forward. New frontiers!
And I don't think I'd heard of "blogging" yet.
not really very 1999ish.
> How is 1999.io different from other blogging platforms?
Looking at the source, I see a little more content.
"Create a test site" is almost completely blank (no text, just a drop shadow and some pull-down arrows near the top of the page). Their other links seem to work as designed.
My work blocks some domains, and is stricter about ones that it doesn't know about (like 1999.io), but I didn't have trouble with accessing any of the fargo.io css or js files.
What? No Atom? No NewsML? That is so 1999.
- To be written in Perl - To support .php, .pl, & .cgi in the user's /cgi-bin/ - To host about 10000 accounts per physical machine - To use FTP, or a CGI form, for remote file management - To use HTML 4.01/XHTML - What's CSS? - What's Twitter? - Features: A user profile/bio! User comments! Subscriptions! Communities! - Up to 10 megabytes of FREE storage - Free add-ons like a hit counter and a feedback submission e-mail form - One free e-mail address and five free e-mail aliases - EXTRAS: Virtual host name and domain name support, up to 5 e-mail addresses & 20 e-mail aliases, up to 1000* megabytes of storage, and No Advertising Banners!!! * actual space may vary based on how badly we over-committed storage
That must be as far from "blogging like it's 1999" one will ever get. :-/
Now Dave Winer is launching a platform that could also disappear at a moments' notice, where the best chance of being 'noticed' is likely to be getting reposted by Dave Winer.
Developers already have tons of options for getting a blog up and running, from GitHub Pages to Posthaven and Ghost - what gives with this?
My understanding of mocking by example is: you have a class you want to test, and that class has a dependency on lets say a Mail class that has a SendMail() method. You mock the Mail class and assert that SendMail() was called as per your specification.
Given that definition of mocking, I personally don't like mocking. I prefer to test state not behavior, although I can see in some scenarios behavior is more important.
E.g. NSubsittue is here: http://nsubstitute.github.io/
FakeItEasy is here: https://fakeiteasy.github.io/
And even though it's commercial product, one should mention TypeMock.
The work mentality there is to get as much done as quickly as possible. Short cuts are the norm, which is frowned upon in North America, and you have to watch your suppliers and make sure they don't screw you over (ex. replace your requested part with a similar one or get you a cheaper part without checking with you and put the difference back in their own pocket). This even happens in the prototyping stage.
And as cheap as building stuff is there, living is still comparable to most US cities when it comes to good housing (ex. Austin, Portland, Denver).
With all that said, things move crazy fast. You put a circuit board order in on Monday and its on your desk on Wednesday.
All in all the video is pretty accurate. Like most of these videos they focus on the usual semi-official tourist stops- Huaqiangqei, local accelerators, etc. You never see the Huawei or TenCent R&D departments, or anyplace that the actual real day-to-day innovation usually happens because those are strictly no-cameras and very much off limits to forigners.
If anyone wants a better look around the HCB electronic markets I shot about an hour of 360 video there last week, it's on YouTube if you search.
But on that note of open source vs proprietary, I'm building a business on open source hardware, yet I have a hard time proving to others (especially other startup founders) that open hardware is the way to go. They fear that their designs will get cloned and they'll get blown out of the water (implicitly at a lower cost by someone in Shenzhen). They want to ensure they can recoup their R&D costs. My point is that if you make a successful product, you're going to get cloned anyway. The counter-point is usually "But why make it any easier for them to clone you?"
Imagine how different bay area startups would be if VC backed startups built robotic arms and legs instead of one-click deploy Rails PaaS infrastructure.
Although I wonder if Emerson will force them to change the name, they have a smart thermostat called Sensi. Sense is a really unremarkable and un-googleable term anyway.
Are there any other recommended hubs these days that allow a fair amount of programmability? I just returned a VeraPlus since it wasn't very interoperable with my devices, had some distance issues (with no battery to move it to pair) among other things.
Mozilla is such a disappointment. Instead of focusing on their raison d'etre they're busy branching out to one unsuccessful venture after another.
A small business wants a website at SquareSpace, cloudflare CDN, email at Google Apps, landing pages on a subdomain with Unbounce, their blog on yet another subdomain, and DKIM/SPF records for the email newsletter system.
Setting this up is not easy for most people. Most people aren't even sure where to do itlet alone how to do it. (is your registrar handling your DNS? sometimes ...)
If you had a 1 or 2-click tool that setup these for people, maybe wrapped it around some domain search/affiliate tools, I think you could make some money.
Well that is one way of looking at it. Probably the appropriate way if you're teaching, but if you want to be critical then it reeks of poor design for a particular service to get special treatment by a fundamental part of the internet. It isn't that MX records aren't needed. They just shouldn't only be useful for email.
While in theory that's common, the primary reason is because of the SOA record that must exist.
I blame it on not having easy access to throwaway playgrounds.
I recently found this project http://mininet.org/ which promises throwaway network playgrounds. Hopefully it will help me finally learn networks for good.
I prefer my domains to be naked (as opposed to www.), but I typically redirect all www-traffic in my web server (NGINX). Is this the wrong approach?
Its one of the poorest interfaces ever created in the history of mankind.
Only these machines seem to be able to generate x-rays with enough brilliance and collimation for this kind of research.
Unfortunately, most of the press does not cite this fact, and people simple don't get to know about the existence and importance of these facilities, which are always publicly funded. That's not only sad, but bad for science.
Remember this? http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/rare-example-of-lost-...
It also relates to the recent submission here at HN of the "This is not a place of honor" article, about the hypothetical 10,000 year warning marker for the WIPP.
The end result: http://imgur.com/WoFSJcr
People should polish a little more before releasing these things. Who knows what the visualization means if the rules are this broken.
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4
It's well known that the correct move here is 3...d6.
> 4.Qe2 d5 5.d3 Bb4+
Black could still limit its material losses to just a pawn with 5...Qe7.
> 6.c3 Bd6 7.Nf3 0-0 8.dxe4 dxe4 9.Nd4 Nd7 10.Nd2 f5
> 11.Ne6 Qh4 12.g3 Qe7 13.Nxf8 Kxf8
My pieces are still a little stuck, but I'm a full rook up! To my surprise, black was very happy to exchange pieces. The main thing that delayed the final result was my own imprecision.
> 14.Nc4 Bc5 15.h4 Ne5 16.Nxe5 Qxe5 17.Bf4 Qe7 18.0-0-0 Bd6 19.Bxd6 cxd6 20.Qd2 Be6 21.Qxd6 Qxd6 22.Rxd6 Bxa2 23.Bh3 g6 24.g4 fxg4 25.Bxg4 h5 26.Bh3 Bf7 27.Re1 Re8 28.Rd7 Be6 29.Bxe6 Rxe6 30.Rxb7 a6 31.Rb4 Rf6 32.Re2 e3 33.fxe3 Rc1+ 34.Kc2 Kg8 35.Rg2 Rf6 36.Rb7 Rd6 37.Rd2 Rxd2+ 38.Kxd2 a5 39.e4 a4 40.Ke3 Kh8 41.Kf4 Kg8 42.Kg5 Kf8 43.Kxg6 Ke8 44.Kf6 Kd8 45.Ke6 Kc8 46.Rh7 Kb8 47.Kd6 Ka8 48.Kc6 Kb8 49.e5 Kc8 50.Rh8#
- You CAN force HTTPS for your *.github.io site.
- You CAN use an https://yourname.github.io URL.
- You CANNOT use a custom domain name with a fully secured HTTPS connection.
Just be sure to delete your CNAME file, based on a recent Github behavior change.
I "cheated" the system by having a script that will redirect you to the HTTPS version if you click on anything from the HTTP protocol, which kind of accomplishes forcing the HTTPS encryption, but not really.
Then I've decided to switch to my own domain and just use CloudFlare (+ whitelisting Tor).
Now I'm kind of thinking about switching to GitLab Pages since they pretty much kick the hell out of GitHub Pages in every single way when you compare their features (like, you can use any static site generator and you can roll your own Lets Encrypt SSL certificate on them).
Back in the 2007-2010 era of websites, somebody mentioned that "ugly" websites work. Not that fancy or flat design is bad. But the sheer simplicity of ugly websites forces people to focus on the content, context and functionality. The ugly websites pointed out were MySpace and Craigslist mainly, but you could probably add a few others like Drudge Report and Plenty of Fish. Even Hacker News is pretty "ugly" but it obviously works great.
Under that model of user expectations, I envision two groups of users: 1. the users who want to casually suggest an icon (and don't need it for anything critical or want to pay for it themselves, but who would happily use it if it became freely available) 2. the users who have a special request and would pay to have it done, regardless of how many other users want it.
Group number 1 won't bother clicking on "Request an icon", because they figure that the button is for members of group number 2. Group number 1 won't see an option for them, which changes site perceptions, because group number 1 has an impression that the site is for paid requests.
Group number 2 will click on "Request an icon", hoping to place an order, but will be disappointed and/or confused by what they see. Members of group number 2 might note that "Oh hey, it'd be nice if I could get this for free". But given that their need was sufficiently critical for them to want to pay commission, the option to submit an idea that may or may not be voted into existence at some unknown time won't seem promising enough for them to invest any more time in the matter.
Am I required to 'share' my icon in order for it to be made, like on of those "Like on Facebook for coupon!" sites? Where can I share it? Can anyone vote for my icon, or only people who see it from my 'share'?
I would suggest that simply "Free" would be a much clearer, with the social/share component available but not required. Then, if they want more people to vote on their icon, they can choose to share it or not.
"Free for share" makes it sound transactional, like I'm paying for the icon with a 'share', which is a concept I absolutely hate.
Okay, back to finish the article...
I understand in cases where it's a big switchover and basically a redesign riding the coattails of a huge middleware/backend rewrite. I don't understand in a case like this when it wouldn't break major back office processes to just put the old site back.
The new page is just confusing. What am I supposed to do on it? Nothing looks like button or a hyperlink.
They specifically mention that they did not lose any traffic/visitor numbers: "Important: our overall traffic didnt change. The same amount of people came to this features page."
It appears as though the "lost users" were really lost interactions with the vote button: "our voting numbers decreased by ~50%."
It's fascinating to me how far people are willing to go when skewing the information to pique interest. I'll bet a lot less people would read it without "lost users" in the title.
Specifically, did solving the issues identified restore traffic back to normal levels?
One thing that would have been cool to see your writeup would be how you used direct customer feedback. Maybe it was none at all, but I suspect talking to customers (or even internal employees) helped you reach some of the conclusions you made. It's really difficult to look at a graph and go, yes this is the thing that caused the change.
- user generated requestst - crowdsourced voting - how easy submitting a request is, and what it entails - the volume of requests you have
I see this in the larger context of icons8 and I get the sense that is akin to voting for a feature. This is something I could do, if I wanted.
The new design shows me:
- Weird titles that may or may not be some sort of request
And that's about it. Only five of them. Take that in the context of icons8 and I really can't parse what it means so I would probably just completely ignore it. On the request page, I don't see how approachable the request feature is, so I ignore it.
Uservoice does it better.
Even if I already fully understand their system and are highly motivated to vote, I wouldn't know how to actually do that in the new design.
In the new design, you have to hover over one of the numbers (without there being any indication that hovering does anything) - after which a grey up-arrow without any text appears. If you're familiar with reddit, etc and know that particular language of symbols, and also know this is a voting system, and you're not distracted by the gray color which could indicate "action not available", you can make an educated guess that this is likely the vote button.
In the old design, it was a button with the word "vote" on it.
Was there any sort of A/B testing done beforehand to see if the changes would bring actual improvement or was it more just trying to mimic current design trends?
Went from being Simple left to right, top to bottom style to some weird layout that it very hard to navigate.
I would give that sucker a grade of F.
Great reminder to have users test products before shipping something.
As well as use common sense in your designs.
One thing Ive noticed since moving to San Francisco is that my cohort in the tech world doesnt talk that much about the industrys past.
I remember 1995 pretty well; I think 2016 has a lot more in common with it than 1995 has in common with 1974. Honestly, I don't think life has changed all that much in the last twenty years. Sure, everyone has a smartphone, and back then almost no-one had a _cell_phone, and the Internet is faster, and computers can do more and are more reliable, but things really aren't fundamentally different.
We had the Web then, and we have it now. We had internet communities than, and we have them now. We listened to music then, and we listen to it now. Computers have been integrated far better into our lives, but they're doing essentially the same things (I still remember watching a QuickTime video of The Spirit of Christmas back in 1996; that's no different in kind than Hulu or Netflix, just in degree).
It's interesting that the author never tried to get these from a library (or at least doesn't mention it). Do libraries not keep back issues anymore? Growing up in LA, I could get back issues of almost any magazine from the library going many decades back. Sometimes my local library didn't have it, but the LA system did.
Also, since she lives in SF, I'll bet should could just head over to Wired HQ and ask to use their collection, and they'd probably be thrilled that someone is interested in back issues. They have them all on a bookcase since the beginning of time. I used to read them when taking breaks.
Really enjoy her writing.
I wish I had all those issues I saved for a decade or so.
Not as defunct as you might think! See: https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=41422.0
(There's a lot more there, don't accidentally drown.)
(I have every single issue).
Because in 1995, the handwriting recognition of the Apple Newton was so bad that it was a Simpsons joke.
"on MUNI, at bars, in bed in my apartment in Haight-Ashbury" sounds like someone who came from somewhere regarded as lame and is hoping that coolness is now on them.
"its a document of a time when consumer technology was still clumsy and undefined" -- I'm not sure consumer technology has reached its pinnacle of perfection.
And that's as far as I got. I'd actually been hoping we were going to hear something like "Here is the nonsense of 1994, which lets us think more clearly about what's probably nonsense in 2016", and maybe it's in there somewhere, buried.