* This exoplanet is now "Kepler-452b" (kepler_name),
* In the "Kepler Object of Interest" catalog, it's KOI "K07016.01" (kepoi_name),
* Its star is both K07016 and Kepler ID 8311864 (kepid),
* In the broader 2MASS sky survey, the star has the id "J19440088+4416392"
Sources (catalog search engines),
(edit): Here's a mirror of the Kepler catalog entries -- KIC for the star, KOI for the planet:
There are 259 stars within about 30 light years.Communication could be conceivable with such distances...
1. Does it have active plate tectonics?
2. Does it have a working deep carbon cycle?
3. Has its atmosphere hung on to its hydrogen (that is, has it managed not to lose it all to high-altitude UV splitting and solar wind)?
If the answer to all three of those is "yes" then this suddenly gets a lot more interesting, whether or not we can see any free oxygen in the atmosphere. And while we won't be able to get answers to them using current technology, next-generation direct-observation planet seeking telescopes might be able to deliver within the 15-30 year time scale (if the astrophysicists I know are correct).
And slides here (currently on Figure 10) http://www.nasa.gov/keplerbriefing0723
EDIT booooo - audio stream has gone down
Looking at the images (aside from the artist interpretation), it looks like they're just guessing based on size and location?
No FTL travel, no working cryonics, no mind-upload tech. Just harsh reality.
>> Kepler-452b is 60 percent larger in diameter than Earth and is considered a super-Earth-size planet.
>> Kepler-452 is 6 billion years old, 1.5 billion years older than our sun, has the same temperature, and is 20 percent brighter and has a diameter 10 percent larger.
I noticed the lack of "b" on that second one, but they seem to be talking about a single planet.
It might not be the most earth like exo-planet as Kepler-438b has an ESI score of 0.88.
"check out this planet, looks like a promising place once we run out of materials here."
Very cool that we can find it, but I don't think we'll be visiting this one any time soon...
On a serious note, I'm looking forward to the discovery of a smaller cousin. That seems to me to be more promising for life: Stuff in water oceans won't sink as readily, so will be able to absorb more sunlight. Avian species will find life easier going (predicated on a suitably dense atmosphere). Any advanced civilizations will have an easier time getting out of its gravity well, and so on.
EDIT: typing error
It's becoming increasingly clear that solar systems are quite common. As our planet detection abilities increase to smaller and smaller planets I believe we'll find more and more of those too. Some of these (like this one) will be in the habitable zone of a star. Some of those assumedly will develop life. Some of those will develop sentient life.
I just picture a timeline like Earth's projected on this planet, which of course has no basis in fact. But imagine a civilization that's had 2 billion years of life longer than ours?
That's a really long time obviously. It's hard to imagine that such a civilization couldn't develop automated methods to populate the local space around them. This is one of the counterarguments to life being common in the universe of course. At 1% of the speed of light you could populate the galaxy with autonomous robots in a "mere" 10 million years.
So our inability to detect anything like this gives weight to the argument that no such starfaring civilization exists or that they're less than ~10 milllion years old.
Was there civilization on this planet and it died out for some reason? We'll probably never know.
As these planets mount up (as I believe they will), it'll further strengthen the idea that we're basically doomed (ie the Great Filter) and further suggest we are a mere cosmic blink.
Are they like us? a civilization that loves going to war and colonize others? that is the most important thing we need to know.
The Wheezy image I use with LXC worked well enough, the minimal alpine image not so well, apk complaining about its database.
User name spaces support would be nice, then we can play with unprivileged containers.
And Overlayfs would be a nifty alternative to btrfs, it's in kernel 3.18, and 4.04 adds support for multiple lower layers. But this btrfs implementation is cool too. Cgroups support will be somewhere on that list too.
Cgroups and namespaces is in the kernel. General Linux ecosystem for networking, storage and distributed systems is already extensive. The possibilities are endless.
So now LXC, Docker, Rkt and Nspawn have Bocker for company.
The network, PID and mount namespaces are the ones unshared, plus a private /proc.
I like tools like this because they're reality checks on how the basics of Linux containers are just a few essential system calls, and particularly that they're limited.
The author of "bocker" (not my bocker) has a great idea. I would learn from the script. Docker is not magic anymore.!!
People give bash a hard time, but things like this really give me that warm, fuzzy feeling.
it might be interesting to see a version of your script using overlayfs
systemd-nspawn is nice because I run systemd in all my containers and thus allows me to easily do logging etc.
I don't really dig the docker-microservices mantra that much. I just use them as glorified VMs I guess.
(And yes, you should run an init system in your containers )
 - https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zomb...
Is something watching for .cmd? Is this some behavior of util-linux (for which, my few seconds couldn't find solid documentation on)?
Is there a certain process that goes into developing something like this, and why is this a popular thing to do? (writing an existing software in lesser lines)
echo 'nameserver 220.127.116.11' > "$btrfs_path/$uuid"/etc/resolv.conf
Some of the best ideas and tools on HN are met with so much negativity it reminds me of Reddit, where the small percentage of people who get off on putting others down so they can feel good about themselves dominate the comments.
Good on you cdjk, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
I also very much liked the idea of using `Range` headers for pagination (which should be out-of-band but rarely is).
I'm not convinced that this is the future of web development, but it's a nice refreshing view that contains a few very practical ideas.
Even if you don't care about this at all, spend the 12 minutes to watch the introductory presentation.
It's like all those web framework inventors didn't read past chapter 2 of their database manuals. So they wrote a whole pile of code that forces you to add semantics in another language elsewhere in your code in a language that makes impedance stark. PostgreSQL is advanced technology. Whatever you might consider doing in your CRUD software, PostgreSQL has a neat solution. You can extend SQL, add new types, use PL/SQL in a bunch of different languages, background workers, triggers, constraints, permissions. Obviously there are limits but you don't reinvent web servers because Apache doesn't transcode video on the fly. Well, you do if you're whoever makes Rubby on Rails.
The argument that you don't want to write any code that locks you to a database is some stunning lack of awareness, as you decide to lock yourself into the tsunami of unpredictability that is web frameworks to ward off the evil of being locked into a 20 year database product built on some pretty sound theoretical foundations.
Web developers really took the whole "let's make more work for ourselves" idea and ran with it all the way to the bank.
You'd have to pay me a million dollars a year to do web development.
And what happens when you start applying complex business rules that needs to scale? So many questions about this approach...
it does same kinda stuff + capable of loading Node.js modules, compatible with MongoLab's REST API and Firebase's real-time API
I find it intriguing, but maybe I am just one generation behind and you were to say:
"Been there done that. This strong dependency on the database was really not a good idea in the long run because... "
Wont this lock you in with very hard coupling between your db schema and public REST API?
I'd say if the OPTIONS would return a JSON Schema (+ RAML/Swagger) instead of the json-fied DDL, it would be even more awesome. With a bit of code generation this would be super-quick to integrate in the frontend then.
If you are using this as a web server persistence backend, I would agree with the first, more or less accept the second and reject the third. HTTP + JSON serialisation are way slower for that kind of job.
If you are just exposing the database using only the Postgres, in that case is interesting, however, I have concerns about how more complex business logics would work with such a CRUD view.
CRUD over HTTP (or an "access API") should be a first step, not your end goal.
Second, I'm an author of a distributed database (VC backed, open-source), so I'd like to respond to some of opinions on databases voiced in this thread - particularly in the branched discussions. If you aren't interested in those responses, you can ignore the rest of my comment.
- "You'd have to pay me a million dollars a year to do web development." Don't worry, most webdev jobs are about a tenth of that. If inflation goes up even a little bit...
- "The problem is scaling your database", I can confirm that this is my experience as well. But there is a very specific reason for that. Most databases are designed to be Strongly Consistent (of the CAP Theorem) and thus use Master-Slave architecture. This ultimately requires having a centralized server to handle all your writes, and this becomes extraordinarily prone to failure. To solve this, I looked into Master-Master (or Peer-to-Peer / Decentralized) algorithms for my http://gunDB.io/ database. Point being, I'm siding with @3pt14159 in this thread.
- "Sorry but databases are just a hole to put your shit in when you want it out of memory", I write a database and... uh, I unfortunately kind of have to agree, probably at the cost of making fun of my own product. You see, the reason why is because most databases now a days are doing the same thing - they keep the active data set in memory and then have some fancy flush mechanism to a journal on disk and then do some cleanup/compression/reorganizing of the disk snapshot with some cool Fractal Tree or whatever. But it does not matter how well you optimize your Big O queries... if the data isn't in memory, it is going to be slow (to see why, zoom in on this photo http://i.imgur.com/X1Hi1.gif ). You just can't get the performance (or scale) without preloading things into RAM, so if your database doesn't do that... well what @batou said.
Overall, I urge you to listen to @3pt14159 and @batou. PostgreSQL is undeniably awesome, but please don't fanboy yourself into ignorance. Machines and systems have their limitations, and you can't get around them by throwing more black boxes at it - your app will still break and so will your fanboyness.
In fact, I think I love any musical reference in software :-)
Of course, it is all counterfactual, but could Airbnb have been as successful had they not joined YC? Recall that PG told them to do things that do not scale - by taking professional photos of rentals in NY - which may have been critical to their early success.
And although PG was initially skeptical of their idea, he quickly changed his thinking about how big Airbnb could become. Revealed in another interesting trail of emails exchanged between PG and Fred Wilson (who also passed on Airbnb). 
 "In fact, when we funded Airbnb, we thought it was too crazy. We couldn't believe large numbers of people would want to stay in other people's places"
It's so important that YC went through the effort to codify the process: http://www.ycombinator.com/handshake/
The timeline is weird.
Reality: $500M in revenue in 2014
Moral: Even the most successful startups don't hit their seed-stage revenue projections :)
The deal isn't done until the money is in the bank
Any middle ground between "highly valuable" and "disaster"?
Thanks for sharing this Paige. Excellent write up and valuable lessons learned.
Here's the story in one sentence: an angel recognized Airbnb's potential but never got the deal in writing so they used it as leverage for a better offer.
Paige invested in Lyft, Twitter and Postmates. He's doing fine and learned from this.
> On a tactical level, I repeat this creative destruction almost weekly as I analyze an individual deal; on an operational level I do it every few months (re-evaluating my deal flow, co-investor network, deal structures, etc.); at a strategic level I sit down almost every year and question my overall philosophy on founders, theses, markets, etc.
[shorter: I don't only regret my mistakes but also try to learn from them.]
Otherwise a well-told story. Thanks.
* Within the first weeks first revenue
* Within 4 months numbers that by themselves each look promising (40-60% response rate although crap product, good revenue per night, good nights booked, etc)
Personally i dont expect any of those metrics nowadays to be further away than 1.5-2x better
The "only" big q's left is:
* is the market big enough it's worth scaling the quantity
* is that team capable of doing it
I feel like i am missing something here (obviously i judge from hindsight) but what about this numbers is "bad metrics"?
That's supposed to be considered a bummer :).
Hey, at least you still have your money !
In fact, who knows, maybe with your investment, Airbnb wouldn't have turned out that great after all.
Maybe you would have lost your money, which would have reduced your reputation and you would have ruminated over it, got depressed, separated, started using drugs and drinking, get arrested for a drunk mishap, resisting arrest and attacking an officer with a tennis ball, then jail time... the wheel of misfortune once set in motion is hard to stop :).
YC is at the center of a large network of investors, startups and bloggers and somehow its investment decisions ultimately influence the habits of technology consumers in general.
I think it was a lose-lose situation for the author.
(I'm aware he might have other sources for the title, but it's still misleading)
Or would the star near it just haze everything too much?
Is it impossible to observe a planet in more detail like that without travelling next to it?
Is there a source? If not, it makes sense to change this title to "NASA to make announcement that 'astronomers are on the cusp' of finding 'another earth.'"
(They mention the upcoming announcement, but they dont know know what it is about either.)
EDIT: Unless that list was literally just updated with ESI 0.98 planet this thread is referring to...
However, The stream has reached "maximum capacity" at this time.
its 1400 light years awayin habitable zoneand the sun is 8% different than ours (don't quote me on the 8% but its very close in size)
YC is an innovative venture capital firm whose model depends heavily on its maintaining credibility with the talented founders who run the ventures it funds. In this sense, it has caught the spirit of the age brilliantly and that is why YC stands out as one of the premier investment firms of our era.
A key element in this approach is for YC to do what it has done all along and that is to take common stock instead of the almost sacrosanct preferred stock that VC firms have always insisted on in the past. This radical innovation in VC-style funding has set YC apart from the pack of VC firms, incubators, and any and all other manner of investor wanting to hitch their wagon to the talented founders who are capable of building successful, massively scaling ventures that seek to transform all of world commerce. Its importance cannot be emphasized enough as a key to YC's success. It has enabled YC both to be in the midst of the fray and to stand above it, all at the same time. It is the founder's ally even while it benefits mightily as an investor.
What then to do after the founding stage to avoid dilution to its initial investment stake without jeopardizing credibility with founders? If YC were to pick and choose in participating in early follow-on rounds, this would selectively help and simultaneously hurt the various founders it works with. Almost by definition, the fact of such an investment would brand some YC ventures as in and others out of YC favor, a result that would prove highly damaging to the aura of goodwill that is not only helpful but absolutely indispensable for YC to maintain with its founders.
So how to maintain that goodwill and still avoid subsequent dilution in the various investment rounds that inevitably follow from the inception of star-quality companies?
Well, you can set up some fixed rules, make such follow-on pro rata investments automatic within the defined bounds that make sense for YC, and use that as a way of extending YC's leverage to help it keep the 7% (or whatever) stake it begins with in each venture.
And that is precisely what YC has done here with its pro-rata program.
Founders usually have no problem with early stage investors being able to participate pro rata in later rounds as long as they are significant investors and as long as such participation does not jeopardize their ability to raise later-stage money on good terms.
YC is of course a significant investor.
As to jeopardizing future funding terms, I believe YC has made a judgment call here that the investors it typically works with will have no problem taking something less than their accustomed full pieces in the later rounds to accommodate YC and will therefore continue to finance YC ventures exactly as before. Hence, no prejudice to founders and no loss of goodwill or credibility among founders.
I believe this is a sound calculation. YC has been able to persuade VCs to deviate from a variety of their traditional rules/requirements as part of being a part of the YC universe. This is just one more to be added to the list. It is a world of increased founder leverage and that means investors who want to stay with the deal flow need to adjust and adapt. I think they will do so here as well.
In a worst case for YC, this might prove a failed experiment. But the downside of the experiment's failing is minimal while the upside in being able to avoid later-stage dilution among a vast group of potentially valuable ventures is huge. Thus, this makes eminent sense for YC for sure and probably for its founders too. As for the VCs who will have to adapt a bit, they will survive and very likely continue happily investing just as before. At least that is how I read it.
If a VC wants to own 20% at the end of an A, or 10% after a B, having YC in there with rights to buy back up to their 7% can add real dilution you wouldn't have otherwise wanted or needed to incur. As someone who did a party round seed and had a crowded A, it really does add up; though, it's for sure a first world problem and won't kill you, whereas YC for many companies is when they get serious.
YC is so valuable that this won't turn anyone off at the traditional YC early stage, but I wonder how this will affect things for the "late-early" companies they've been taking more of in the last few batches.
I've always thought being an LP in YC would be fantastic because of the valuation bump companies get on demo day. Let's say a company could raise money at $5mm valuation, but instead gives 7% to YC, and as a result can raise at a $10mm valuation => (1) founders win by keeping more equity, (2) YC wins by their investments getting cash with less dilution, and (3) post-YC investors pay more (maybe still great investments, but not as good as getting in at $5mm).
But to maintain 7% in companies up to a $250mm valuation, it seems that the vast majority of YC's deployed capital will be in the place of what was previous a "post-YC" investment.
YC should still be in the business of finding great companies, but might not makes sense for them to help get gangbuster valuations at demo day.
I have zero business acumen and have no familiarity with investing or how new companies work.
YC companies to date have raised $3bn in total so far, with a couple dozen above $100m out of just over 800.
Therefore at most YC would have invested $210m if they'd done this from the start.
It basically adds up to a couple hundred thousand on Series A, 0.5-0.8m series B, $1-2m at series C, then at series D you'd hope to be approaching $250m
Given a propertied fund size of $1bn this makes sense in backing winners probably funding 200 companies a year at $200-300m/year, particularly as major pickup in valuation is A to C
Of course, 7% might be enough to overcome the threshold in many cases, but as an angel investors in YC deals, I have lost my pro rata rights following a YC Note/SAFE conversion this way (despite the docs suggesting I am protected).
Once you realize that you could either stop funding companies after graduating altogether or invest in all of them, both of which remove the signal. With the funds they have, clearly there is considerable risk tolerance for the latter.
Couldnt that keep outside investors away?
The i-Loo featured an internet-enabled monitor on the cubicle wall and a special printer that would allow users to print information on a standard toilet paper roll.
Anyway, when you turned on the light a little disco ball would light up and some high energy pop song would play: "I Want to Break Free," "YMCA".. something like that.
It was the talk of the town.
iLoo seems like a bad idea, but for an unconventional marketing campaign, doing something with festival toilets is not a bad idea. If you've seen Better Call Saul's talking toilet, that would be a particularly impactful approach.
It would have promoted the brand to be sure, just not in the direction they wanted.
I wonder if they were inspired by Apple to use an iName. But then, internet was the best excuse ever for the ridiculous leading vocal.
When at your friends house, subtly announce to them that you need a poo by asking for their wifi password.
I wish this had been included in the main body of this post, with some metrics; everyone you know uses it because it makes the web suck so much less.
Loading The Verge's article in a Chrome incognito window: 19.6 MB transferred, finished in 41.9 s, huge ad covering the entire page above the developer console I had open to watch things load.
Same article in a new incognito window with Adblock Plus enabled: 1.5 MB transferred, finished in 16.94s.
 - https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9002721/the-mobile-web-su...
I don't like tracking scripts either but why can't the ad networks get together and create a shared script instead of so many that seem to be redundant?
I wonder if that is going to be what it takes to fix today's bloat problems: Google takes the hammer to sites that too much advertising cruft. Otherwise, I don't see business makers seeing much of a reason to fix it on their own.
Emacs built in web-browser, or "eww" (that's its name). It's sort of like Lynx or w3m, except you can click things and it shows actual images!
You can see it here: http://imgur.com/FqJVB0U
You know what? The site and all content loads instantly. It may not be beautiful, but it works a hell of a lot better and is just so feather light it feels surreal.
Maybe I'll seriously start using eww for more stuff. This was surprisingly nice.
Not to mention their recent move to close Comments being a cynical strategy to get people using their forums.
Realise that's OT but wanted to get it off my chest.
I'm curious as to how that could ever be done. I feel that it's almost impossible without somehow getting user information. I feel the trend is that ads are going to continue to be tuned to people and aspects about them. Maybe fully homomorphic encryption can do that without violating privacy but that's a long way off.
> Here's another idea: Almost a year ago, I heard the notion of "Subscribe 2 Web" at Mozilla. The gist is that you're worth about $6.20 per month across publishers via advertising revenues. What if you paid that much into an account yourself every month and used a mechanism built into your browser to distribute that money? Yeah, it's micropayments, but I find it interesting that these folks came up with a specific dollar amount that doesn't sound terrible.
It exists. It's called Contributor by Google: https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/. If anybody needs an invite please let me know.
Sites are loading up on anything and everything to offset costs and it's only getting worse with adblock. And ad networks are just built with poor engineering and no attention paid to the user's experience. It's too easy to whip up a basic ad server and just load a dozen more tags on a page with the focus being volume and clicks. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to fix things because of the way money flows.
Disclaimer: I'm the founder of a digital ad network.
7MB was about the install size of Microsoft Windows 3.0, a complete (if crummy) OS.
Perhaps websites just need to die altogether, and instead we'll just use APIs. You choose how to render the content in your browser according to your desires. Oh wait....RSS.
Seems reasonable. bwahahaha!
Shall we discuss the number of DNS requests?
And how many of those offsite servers are using something convoluted like Amazon for DNS? (which I find is more and more prevalent thanks to AWS)
The blog author, e.g., is using Amazon for DNS.
Alas, for each and every name, this adds more than a few lookups to what could be a 1-2 request process. Amazon uses multiple levels of indirection.
This dance is not of much consequence in the case of a single name.
But in the aggregate, e.g., many names requested from one overloaded site (such as one author singles out) after another, it does add up.
This also creates a larger margin for errors (failed lookups getting retried and timing out, again and again... while the user sits and waits).
To use some of the examples in the article, not everyone can rely on national license fees (BBC), corporate sponsorship (NPR), consistently making a loss (The Guardian), search engines (Mozilla), having a legacy business (CNN) etc.
I wonder which kinds of proposals you would suggest. It should also cover analytics.
"I like building things because I am curious and I pursue knowledge for its own sake"
With all the confirmation bias and name calling (which I am certainly guilty of from time to time) it is refreshing to hear someone talking about how they just want to focus on building something exciting and not focusing on politics.
this originally said "both sides to shut up to they can get back to building and hacking.", which was not meant literally, but to convey the sentiment the edited section now reflects.
edit: If you strongly disagree with me, and I am being sincere here, I can promise your energy will be much better spent building/doing/creating/enjoying something than engaging in a debate with me. If you are up to the challenge, go out and do. If you take some time to go out and do something awesome and you still feel like you would like to converse, I would like to talk about your projects/etc and my email is listed.
[final edit:] I have been doing a lot of thinking about cultural problems. I have began a change in perspective that has lead to personal growth, asking not why something matters but when/contextually something matters. Maybe whatever is being argued down thread is the single biggest issue you find fault with in our society or maybe it is the 5th, 10th issue, etc. I can only reiterate that "creating" will better your cause but this is not the context or the "when". Go start a scholarship, teach people to code, work on a product, call your senator, etc. Doing something is much better than talking about something and if there was a place to reasonably have meaningful discourse, I assure you this is not that place.
I look at the Twttier-style feminists (I don't mean the traditional equality types, but the extremists) and can only think that they are doing it for their own gain. If they really wanted to participate in their targets of anger, they could just do what everyone else does: work hard at a hobby for years, even decades, and maybe, just maybe they too could dominate the field.
This also seems like a straightforward example of how mainstream feminism is bad at intersectionality. Arguably both sides in this discussion are not great at it: I feel like there's probably a good answer that involves neither belittling people for having different reads of social interactions nor asserting that everyone else should read social interactions the way you do.
I wonder what the people in this disagreement would say today. I think tech feminism has been getting more aware of intersectionality of late, so I'm curious if the problems the author identified about have gotten better.
This article by Susan Sons is also good: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software
It blows my mind that this stuff still happens. In the OSS world of all places. I can't even compute how someone can apply such "logic".
Of course, it's a lot harder to be positive rather than negative.
Now that's a woman I respect. Instead of whining around, she just implements it. Suckerpunched the misogynist.
You will see how much easier your life becomes if you stop complaining and start doing. That's also how you earn respect.
I think the last great frontier for humanity's "waking up from history" is awareness of group psychology, particularly the psychology of the "other." Ironically, as noted by GCP Grey, widespread access to the Internet has actually made such group psychology worse.
One of the big problems with an awareness of what Noam Chomsky called "irrational jingoism," is that currently society is made out of it. Our organizations and social norms and structures actually use the natural jingoism built into Homo sapiens in order to increase group solidarity.
The cognitive distortions that come out of such group psychology are a big problem online. It's been noted that if you go far enough in either direction of the political spectrum, things start to look the same. Historically, both extremes become militaristic and convinced of a duty to righteous aggression. I would invite hardy and curious souls to plumb both more militant feminist and more militant Men's Rights groups online, and witness firsthand the degree to which both sides can be eerily reminiscent of each other in tone and self-righteous attitude. (For example: Intolerant "you're with us or against us" attitudes.)
As 21st century citizens, we should already be aware of "bait and switch" tactics. We should also be savvy about the psychology of online groups, and be able to read when a group has started to cross a threshold and becomes driven by positive feedback cycles of outrage to garner more attention. We should recognize when the ideology of whatever movement has been thus hijacked to become hateivism. (EDIT: To clarify, what I refer to as "groups" are small-granularity, as in a few person's social networks, not everyone who identifies with a particular label!)
To clarify: my issue is not with either side of any debate. There are a few ideas on both sides of the issue I would agree with. My chief concern is whether the groups in question are self-aware concerning their own group dynamics. Such an organizational awareness was perhaps the chief accomplishment of Martin Luther King Jr. and his compatriots, though there seems to be no awareness of this particular accomplishment in the culture at large.
EDIT: I should clarify what I meant by saying "made such group psychology worse." Creating virtual meeting spaces and virtual online groups is far easier and far cheaper than organizing face to face groups, and the same communication resources also make it easier to facilitate such meetings in person. Much good has come of this. However, it has also created far more opportunities for the incubation of distorted mob psychologies. Often these take the name of some cause or ideology but are distorted in a jingoistic direction.
As 21st century online citizens, we should be as aware of such "bait and switch" with the labels of ideologies as we are aware of the same tactics with regards to name brands. We should be as savvy about the intellectual provenance of an online group's teachings and its actual practices as we are savvy about online shopping or choosing which Kickstarter campaigns to support. If just about anyone can set up shop online as an "activist," doesn't this create the same situation that arises when just about anyone can set up a web store? (Isn't this the same economic situation as with travelling medicine shows?)
From what I have seen online, people are often remarkably unsophisticated about evaluating distortions in their particular group's interpretation of ideologies or activist programs, and largely blind to their own group dynamics. This is especially true when "othering," stereotyping, and group hatreds have taken hold. Most importantly: It is just as true online as it is in-person.
Arguably, a slightly autistic personality is helpful for a programmer. Possibly it could also be a big reason for many future programmers to turn to tech in the first place, where you deal with strict, deterministic rules instead of emotions.
This would obviously not excuse misogyny in tech, but could help explain the gender imbalance.
The author got lucky and doesn't, or can't, feel bad about misogyny. This isn't true for everyone, nor should it be. I agree with the "feminists" that it's counterproductive to say that if more women were like you, misogyny wouldn't matter so much. Talking about "good" experiences as models is only productive when the difference between your experience and others' is the behavior of potential perpetrators, not the behavior of potential victims.
When I first entered the workplace as a programmer, I was not taken as seriously as I might have been because I was so young. I got my first programming job at 16, and even when I started doing major consulting gigs across the country at 19, I looked really young for my age. One client remarked, upon meeting me, "You don't look old enough to operate a car, much less our computer." It was always a challenge for me to get people to evaluate my ideas based on their merit rather than their source, and to evaluate me based on my work product, rather than where they were at in their career when they were my age.
I have worked for myself for many years now, but if I sought employment elsewhere, I'd probably face some difficulties because I'm much older than the average developer, and people would assume that I'm stuck in old technologies as many professional developers my age are.
But the truth is that unfounded discrimination happens all the time in the workplace, for all kinds of reasons. Almost nowhere is a true meritocracy. At one place I worked, even when I was at the perfect average age for software developers, and white, and male, even then I was cut out of the circle of the key developers. It was because the developers, owner, and key management liked to stop working many days around 10:30am and start drinking heavily, maybe stopping back by the office briefly some time in the afternoon, then go back to drinking steadily the rest of the day until 6 or 7 pm. I didn't really do that with the same kind of endless enthusiasm that they did. I didn't fit in very well.
If you find a group of people that accept you the way you are, and evaluate you based on the work you do, you've found gold. If mere excellence is the currency of the realm, and all they want from you is to be the best you can be, then that's a glorious place to be. But finding such a place is very rare. It's hard to find that in a workplace, a church, a group of friends, or anywhere. And if you're struggling to find that, it's not entirely because of race, gender, age, or sexual orientation-- it's mostly because of people's basic nature.
NB I don't have the correct language to express this idea. I'm even concerned that I might be flat out misunderstood. Consult my own comment history to know where I stand.
NB I haven't heard of the author before nor read the apparent criticism.
The author is a hardcore coder on the autism spectrum and thus fits in well with the "nobody cares about your gender, race, nor creed--show me the code!" meme.
The author asks her critics to cease putting her down to push their own agendas. Okay.
But uh... Back to that meme. Is there any chance that the author is perhaps... A coder first and a person with a gender second? That's what the meme is about, right? In text mode, we're all just text generating entities, idea makers. (It really is beautiful--I grew up on IRC myself.)
But look, the internet isn't just textmode anymore, and it doesn't exist just in cyberspace anymore. Decisions coders make affect the--blah blah you all know this, software is eating.
So, maybe, just maybe, the hardcore-on-the-spectrum-practically-deterministic-themselves folks shouldn't be the only ones with commit-bits, hm?
I'm tired of writing this. To sum up: I'm glad for the author's successful life as a coder and yes folks should stop attacking her, but no, the existence of the author nor a hundred thousand more of her does not solve the "tech needs women" problem. Because--back to the meme--it's not really women we need. It's heart.
Because software is eating the world, "Made with love" needs to more than a marketing slogan. We need more coders that are emotionally brilliant! There is a large technical debt around "how software will alter the course of human history" and frankly it terrifies me that so many emotionally stunted devs are the primary authors.
Annnnnd there go my points. ;P
Empathy is about seeing it both sides. It's not about everyone else making you feel welcome and comfortable.
* "...posted an idea for a new feature to the developers mailing list for an open-source project...[but on list she had no access to, it was] dismissed the idea out of hand because a woman had proposed it." The feature only became available because she had the opportunity to implement it in such a way that it became a "rousing success". (I should stop right here because that's about as damning an incident as I can come up with.)
* "...called the police in a foreign country to report an attempted rape at a conference, and argued with them when they told my friend that nobody would consider it assault since theyd both been drinking."
* "...thwarted a wannabe PUA at a conference completely by accident" by "a blazingly single-minded focus on whatever topic I happen to be perseverating on at the moment".
Now, I don't want to seem to be saying that she's wrong to feel as she does, or that her experiences are somehow invalid, or that she's in "denial" as some idiot put it. I'm not. Really. It works for her and others, and I think she would admit it doesn't work for everyone.
On the other hand, I don't think her suggestion of, "What Ive got, and what I wish the rest of the 'women in tech' community who rage against the misogyny they see everywhere they look could also have, is a blazingly single-minded focus on whatever topic I happen to be perseverating on at the moment," is a workable approach.
Most of the people I know can't ignore those sorts of things and can't be satisfied "...literally [doubling] over laughing at how nonplussed he must have been to see it not only implemented, but implemented to rousing success." Most of the people I know don't want to.
(Ok, here's an internet-reasoning hypothetical for you: I know a lot of geeks who use the term "sportsball"; I believe many of them have this sort of antipathy because they faced some kind of abuse from the sportsball players of the world. Would you, assuming you're one of such, be willing to ignore that abuse because you were passionately interested in baseball or (American) football---both of which have fascinating statistical stories to tell, by the way?)
Now, me, I'm a right cranky, misanthropic rat-bastard and I can certainly single-mindedly focus on whatever interests me at the moment (early Mesopotamian and Near Eastern history, abstract algebra and programming languages, and natural language processing at the moment, fwiw), but I don't want to hang around a community that is casually abusive to anyone, even if it isn't me. And, damn it, maybe I want the goddamn feature that didn't get implemented because the idea was dismissed because of who suggested it.
I notice from some of the other comments that there are those who believe that the single-minded focus is the royal road to success in tech. It's not. How many people do you know who have the focus but aren't successful? (This isn't really an example because he is successful enough that you know his name, but has anyone read Chuck Moore's blog lately?) And how many people do you know who are successful but aren't especially focused---maybe because they didn't have to swim upstream against incidents like Patterson's? (Anyone remember the old Ruby community?) Further, by the way for those of you in the startup community, you probably don't want total focus on tech to be the ultimate. People like that are very easy to take advantage of.
There isn't an above-baseline sexism among long-term professional programmers. Sure, there are bad apples, but the culture that you'll find at a gray-haired research lab or even a more traditional, supposedly conservative, enterprise shop is not nearly as exclusionary as the supposedly progressive and new Silicon Valley culture.
By stereotype, you'd expect 60-year-old men writing elevator controllers in Indiana to be far more sexist and exclusionary than 25-year-olds in California. It ain't true. First of all, someone who's 60 now was born in 1955 and has no meaningful memories of the bad old days; by the time he or she was starting a career, women were already in the workforce and it was accepted by many as a good thing. Second, if you control for education, the age vs. exclusionary behavior correlation goes away. Third, most people actually get more mature with age, and while there are some who mature at a lesser rate than society advances and become the "racist grandparent" trope, I don't think that it's the norm. (Also, American society's rate of advancement has slowed in the past 30 years compared to the 30 before that, but that's another topic.) Fourth, anyone who thinks the dominant Silicon Valley culture is still liberal has been asleep for 20 years.
That's not to say that private sector tech doesn't have a sexist, exclusionary culture. It does. It doesn't come from the programmers (although there are individual programmers who are assholes and keep it going). Rather, it comes from the mainstream business culture (MBA culture) that colonized us. In fact, the sexism of the Damasos (see: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/vc-istan-8-t... ) who are sent West to boss nerds around is a lot more severe than that of the mainstream MBA culture. Banks might make it harder for women to advance; venture capitalists, on the other hand, will outright hit on them and threaten to "pick up a phone" and make them unfundable if they don't acquiesce.
You know how when a criminal gang kicks out some of its underperforming members and they form a new gang, the upstart young gang is typically more violent than the one it splintered off from? The sexism of the VC bros and the Spiegel types they fund is analogous. The demigods of the Valley are people who got kicked out of mainstream business culture because they weren't smart enough to do statistical arbitrage at hedge funds, so they were sent West to man this colonial outpost (from the MBA-culture perspective) called Silicon Valley. As MBA-culture failures, it's not surprising that they amplify some of that culture's worst traits, and that they've created a dominant culture in Silicon Valley that is (a) very negative and (b) far worse than the more superficially conservative (no sandals at work) but generally professional culture you see in more traditional companies, including the ones doing (say) hardware work and low-level programming, the latter of which seems to be the OP's interest.
She had a positive experience because she was hanging around Real Technologists, who aren't nearly as sexist as the Silicon Valley wunderkinder. The Shanleys of the world aren't complaining about 55-year-old men who still say "Oriental" (meaning no harm, and not holding racist views) but are generally professional and not very sexist (many are married and have daughters). They're complaining about 22-year-olds who get funded to the gills because they were in the same rape frat as a leading VC, and who go on to create horrible work cultures.
1. To start with, they sneaked in the request to access all your email contacts and constantly spam them in your name which can be embarrassing at times to say the least.
2. Their mobile apps do the same with your phone contacts, cleverly hiding the checkmark (in smallest font) to disallow the uploading of contacts. I have unknowingly let them look through my contacts at least two different times prompting me to never install their app again.
3. Letting others know that you viewed their profile. This is fine as long as you know about this feature but I bet that a bunch of us were taken by surprise in the early days to find out that our "online research" on someone was not private unless if you're incognito.
4. Charging you beyond the free trial period without any email or notification about it. I agree that many businesses do this but some of them like Amazon and Netflix are nice enough to allow you to disable the future payments before the trail ends. Also they tend to notify you about the payments.
5. Letting people have access to my email and other contact info even when I haven't accepted their request to connect. This may have been fixed with the recent change but may just have been one of those hidden features that led to their popularity with the recruiter world in the first place.
I am sure I missed out a bunch of other things here but these are the reasons why I can never trust LinkedIn.
I've not looked back and my life is exactly as it was, minus a few unwanted emails.
The users are what is for sale on this site. I'm not a LinkedIn user, it's not worth it.
This has not always been the case. I used to get the hated torrent of "I see you have 12 years of development experience, how about this entry level position!!!" crap, but I haven't seen one of those in a long time. Either recruiters are getting better, or something I put in my profile has quieted down the garbage.
Either way, I don't think there's much that I've put on that site that I'd feel the need to "export" so the topic of this article seems to be a non-issue. You folks don't have alternate copies of your resume and contacts somewhere?
Yes, it has led to actual, paying jobs. It takes some management on my part, but it's a lot easier than hunting around from site to site, or going to meetups, or any of that other stuff.
Do I get spammed? Sure. That's why I have a specific email account for them. Some of the spam is quite informative. I learn about openings early on, and can often find the hiring company by taking the text of the spam and searching the various job boards.
I get genuine requests, too. I take the time to respond to those just as genuinely.
For all the talk of the importance of networking around here, I'm kind of surprised at the antipathy. It's very low effort, just a few minutes a week.
I regard a lot of the complaints as symptomatic of the overall industry. I finally started going to meetups, and the signal-to-noise is just as bad, if not worse.
as much as i may or may not like linkedin(i dont much), i think this little bit of info is useful when judging the reasoning behind the decision to turn it off.
3 days sounds an awful lot as if human intervention were required. What purpose would this serve?
There is a "download all my facebook data" option, but that only gives you a plain "firstname lastname" list. No contact information there either.
I want to be in whole control of my public data, that's why getting a domain and posting a blog is maybe more tedious but better at the end.
I can only surmise they made this change to make it harder for (more) people to bail because they know how dreadful using their site is now and this is an easier "fix" than a Dominos-style mea culpa and positive changes.
However I get lots of connection requests from recruiters. I always accept them. I figure that greatly dilutes whatever value linkedin might have once had because most of my connections are recruiters who wadte their time on me because I dont log in a whole lot.
Unfortunately I'm unable to find an English-language article on that at all. There is only this Imtech response: http://imtech.com/EN/corporate/Newsroom/Highlights/Imtech-re...
Easily the best part of the article.
-a huge sport stadion
All of them as a way to transfer some state/town money to political cronies. The sad part is that some of those make sense as an infrastructure improvement (most doesn't though, at least here) so it's easier to sell the idea to people. The way the business is done is to just pay 30%-50% more than it should cost and pocket the difference.
On the plus side, it seems like they've finally found someone competent to fix the mess and move the project forward.
What if you can only hand out $1M? Will someone still want to bribe you? -Of course, but he'll be a "smaller player" then.
All public spending involves some sort of "corruption"  because it's always other people's money being spent, and there's always someone in charge of spending it.
If you could pay $10 to get $100, wouldn't you do it? A bribe is an investment, and the tax money received in exchange is the ROI.
 I put "corruption" in quotes because it's just the system working as intended. If the system were actually corrupted, it would somehow start working for the masses' benefit instead.
Think about it. How do you benefit from someone else spending your money for you? Your money serves a means towards an end for whoever spends it, meaning he will be trying to benefit from spending it.
"Niemand hat die Absicht, einen Flughafen zu errichten!"
('Nobody has the intention to build an airport!')
It is possible that these sites exist as new financial "loopholes", transferring tax-money from the government to private contractors without much oversight.
A year ago or so, it turned out that the folks responsible for all the mess (none of the board of course) we not to be found, because they were supporting a system were a subcontractor could hire another subcontractor and so forth, making it impossible for anyone to get a grip on what is going on. And that is not what I would expect from a billion dollar project run by some of the most trusted politicians and executives in our country.
I flew home from Budapest a couple of weeks ago, and I was surprised to see that we were using the actual airstrip of BER. The flight was supposed to go to SXF (Berlin Schnefeld), but instead we landed on the new airstrip, driving by the not-yet-finished new airport. Can anyone tell me why?
There's more to it though - starting with corruption  and going all the way to REBULDING the whole thing .
I'll stop here now - but I hope that there will be a lot more of critique towards those who made this a completely embarassing desaster.
[sorry guys, links are in german. I'll try to find english ones] http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/berlin-schoenefeld-korrupt... http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/acht-milliarden-euro-b...
So, which country does Germany want to borrow money from in order to cover the wasteful spending?
I wonder if anyone has looked at large scale projects like these over the last 100 years and determined what implications (if any) technology has had in reducing these issues.
Edit: one of my favorite articles on that topic (German) http://www.der-postillon.com/2012/08/neue-zeitform-futur-iii...
According to him, you can find the famous German Grndlichkeit in The South, with The North being the exact opposite. He used the Berlin airport as an example: "it was an endless failure". This was in 2011 or 2012. I wonder how strong opinionated South-Germans like him look at this today.
I think for non-Germans the difference in Grndlichkeit is probably not noticeable :)
Then again this seems on a much higher level of disaster, but should be familiar to anyone building large government software systems.
Here is an interview with him on EconTalk about the subject:http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/05/bent_flyvbjerg.html
If a German airport, with a huge budget, has 150.000 defects of which 85k are serious, then what about airports in other countries, which don't make use of the world-famous german high quality standards ?
What about airports in countries were things are solved with a bribe, a handshake and an evil smile ?
My German is pretty basic, but "Geschasster BER-Planer war nur technischer Zeichner ... Doch di Mauro ist kein Ingenieur, wie angenommen wurde" amounts to "Ousted BER-Planner was only a technical draftsman ... but di Mauro is not an engineer, as was thought".
 [German] http://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/news/stern-exklusiv-geschasst...
Because if nothing moves inside, no air circulates and they get a mold problem.
and this: http://istderberschonfertig.de/
I wonder if it would be better to build and contract these things in stages, in blocks of usefulness.
If you keep scrolling down, you hit the next article and the URL changes. How did they do that? Kudos
<... and in the end Germany wins>
It's been in private beta for backers for a while. I forget when it's going public, but I don't think it's far away...
Also, I'm not sure if it's a bug, but with Smart Completion set to off, it still auto completes as you are typing. This can get annoying after a while. Lastly, if you type ';' followed by enter, the program crashes.
* select table or form from a list, hit enter
* then a form with all fields would show up
* one could populate some fields with query condition, e.g. name = 'xyz'
* then hit enter and tool would run a query
* then one could navigate prev/next through the results.
I was not fond of this, but some folks in the office still swear by this and ask if they can have a tool like that for postgres. I sent them to psql, but just typing SQL gives them heartburn.
I must admit some of them were quite faster with isql than with psql. This tool helps a bit, but still hoping for the form mode.
I have a question, mostly about MySQL version of it: have you made some effort to natively support SSH port-forwarding/tsocks with this client? Because my experience is that it really works bad with the default client. But, TBH, I don't even know how much it depends on the client/server-side.
I haven't tried it yet, but I seriously need to now.
It always bothers me that this area of the law seems to be entirely based on judges' interpretation of the purpose of a UI. A UI is illegal if it guides the user towards the illegal action. If it is possible to perform the illegal action but the user has to put in a little thought into how to accomplish it then the UI is legal. Google can't have a file-type search box with an mp3 option but if users know the right incantation they can achieve the same thing. So we have lawyers telling us how we can build UIs. It seems wrong and like a dangerous slippery slope.
This business seems to have been run and have proceeded horribly, for the exact reasons that Caldwell and everyone else with experience in that area seems to be extremely familiar with.
Is there anything legitimately interesting to the "Apple" and "Steve Jobs" parts of this story other than the usual clickbait?
The reason why they failed is because they, like many others, were "nebulously/quasi legal." (You know what was ALSO awesome yet not legal or respectful of creator pay? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiogalaxy .) At least Apple was trying to make it all legit. They did start with DRM (note: no longer the case for years) but this was to make the record companies more comfortable with it.
The reason why SeeqPod was sued is because Warner Music (and others) had a case. It was not a purely frivolous, harassing lawsuit.
How does one "debug" X11 config files? I had to do that when it hated my monitor and rubbish graphics card but that sentence appears like complete and utter rubbish.
EDIT: For clarification for those disposed to downvote, looking through an XF86 config file is not rocket science.
A bizarre comment did he expect to see it coming? How does this relate to the story at hand? "Somehow, even someone as sophisticated as me, didn't see the downturn coming" ... if he could predict any kind of change in the stock industry better than investing professionals he wouldn't be running a questionably-legal streaming startup.
Citation needed. Or did I miss it amongst the self-aggrandizing?
People on the web today are not really anonymous and not really identifiable either. I think we need to fix both of those problems.
Have you been paying attention at all the past 10+ years? Please explain they success they have had and how it came from their courtroom escapades.
The willingness of police to label death a suicide never ceases to amaze me. I was on the beach down in Florida a few years ago and found a dead girl with her hands tied. Cops showed up and immediately assumed suicide. Turns out she had drug issues and had a history to support the assumption, but no reasonable person would approach a situation like that with such strong priors.
I'm not saying every crime scene is out of a Hollywood movie with a serial killer lurking in the shadows, but I would have really liked to see zero prior beliefs at that point. I'd sleep better knowing the people out there in charge of "serving and protecting" the general public viewed their occupation as a search for truth rather than some perverse version of The Office with guns.
This one... is apparently not? What's going on here?
1)Repeated unimportant segments of video.
2)A fairly good sounding audio track.
3)An audio track which is not the same length of the video track.
4)The video issues do not start happening till over 20 minutes into the uploaded video, and then happen at multiple times over the next 15 minutes.
What can we conclude about the video? Well I can't conclude anything, but I sure get a lot of questions.
Could this be an issue with the recording of the video stream? I don't know seems like we might have some experts here on video recording equipment here that might be able to say if this is a type of problem that is even possible, maybe even some with knowledge of the type of equipment used in police dash cams.
Has anyone seen anything like this 'just happen' in digital video before? I haven't but my experience is limited. Anyone else?
Why is the audio OK but the video is bad? Well audio and video could be recorded separately, and if they weren't they are not hard to separate, and audio is much easier to edit.
Could the video of been edited? Well sure it was probably at least cut for upload. If it was edited the editor really sucked.
If the video was edited, why would the video be edited? Maybe it was cut to remove something that happened in one of the frames somewhere during one of the repeats. Maybe the audio was edited too and it was edited to more closely match the audio length (matching just as well as the video was edited). Maybe someone started editing the video to hide something in a missing segment and didn't finish or get to the audio before it was uploaded.
What other things besides editing and recording failure could explain the video issue? I don't know.
Do we have any experts here who given the available youtube video on the Texas Department of Public Safetys youtube page could do analysis on a more in depth level than watching it? I don't know but I think this question is why I see this belonging on Hacker News.
At 12:50 the policeman slams shut the door of her car and it is in sync with the audio.
At 25:55 the same door gots slammed, but no sound is to be heard. Maybe because the policeman is carrying the microphone? Is he that far away?
At about 48:00 the door of another car gets slammed. Its clearly on the audio, but about 1 second too early.
What this is, is an ultra-common case of yet another cop "escalating everything always" because there is no downside for them to do so. They do it because they can, because they are taught power and control over people is everything and the slightest challenge should be met with extreme force.
She should have never have been ordered to get out of the car, so this was a false arrest.
If it's an order, get out of the car. White, black, asian, or hispanic, once that order is given, you're getting out of the car one way or another.
If you really think the order was given unlawfully, take it to court where these things can be debated.
Cops have stopped pulling me over for no reason. Before the cam, I was getting pulled over for driving an old car, or I was driving between 10 p.m. - 2:30 a.m.? I wish I had these cams when I was younger. Could have saved a lot of pointless questions, and aggravation?
I'm a white guy who's been pulled over so many times for no reason--I lost count; I can't imagine what minorites have to go through? We should be able to drive without that constant fear of harassment. Harrasement is being pulled over for made up reasons? Cams have helped in my world. They have worked so well, I thinking about mounting a rear cam? "See them coming and going?" Sorry, if I sound jaded, but I live in a low crime area. Cops have become revenue collects here.
I have no clue if the cop was right when he said that he has "every right" to ask her to put down her cigarette and step out of her car. Cops pull this shit all the time betting on the fact that citizens have no f-ing idea what they actually can and can't order them to do.
"I will light you up!", just for that this guy deserves to be fired.
If true, oddly enough, I'm not sure a crime was committed, although it sure feels like somebody should go to jail. But I am not sure. Is there a law that says that everything the police releases to the media concerning possible court cases must be the same evidence that will be presented at trial? Or are they free to spin and edit things however they like? I believe they are.
Assuming this line of reasoning, the LAT may have jumped the gun by releasing the story when it did. It would have been much more interesting to have let the video stand as a Press Release, then see if they tried to use it in court, then run the story. As it is now, we'll never know how that scenario would have turned out.
The killer app in this space will be when someone figures out how to extract a vocal model from existing recordings of singers. Vocaloid already synthesizes singing quite well, but a human singer has to go into a studio and sing a long list of standard phrases to build the singer model. The next step will be to feed existing singing into a system that extracts a model usable for synthesis.
The RIAA is so going to hate this.
The input was copied from the instructions - "Type a message into the text box, and the network will try to write it out longhand". But you can see it skipped the "e" in "Type" and added an "h" after the "w" in "network", and pretty clearly spelled "to" as "du".
It also tried to cross the first vertical line of the "w" in "network" in lieu of adding an actual "t" beforehand (which is arguably an idiosyncrasy a human's handwriting might have, if a rather odd one); and stuck a big phantom stroke/letter between "T" and "y".
And so begins the devaluing of that proof. Just like when marketers started reproducing the "signature" on every sales letter with blue-colored toner, mimicking the authenticity of a hand signature.
I don't write handwritten letters, and I don't romanticize the past. But our dwindling ability to assess the authenticity of incoming communication is slightly unsettling.
Text entered: this is a test of handwriting generation
Style sample #1 selected.
All other settings at default.
Edit: I've tried a couple other styles and haven't duplicated this craziness.
I could see it being used in games to generate hand written notes from data files.
I love what BREAKFAST does as much as the next person and they are an extremely talented team, but all of this amazing technology and innovation is going towards selling products for a brand that totally disregards factory workers wage rights so much so that F21 were "sued by the United States Department of Labor for ignoring a subpoena requesting information on how much the companys suppliers pays the workers who make its clothes"
This reminds me of the recent article posted on HN "Web Design: The First 100 Years". How many of these underpaid factory workers are the greatest minds of our time? "We live in a world now where not millions but billions of people work in rice fields, textile factories, where children grow up in appalling poverty. Of those billions, how many are the greatest minds of our time? How many deserve better than they get? What if instead of dreaming about changing the world with tomorrow's technology, we used today's technology and let the world change us? Why do we need to obsess on artificial intelligence, when we're wasting so much natural intelligence?"
"Then the gas-lights guttered in their copper rings, and the orchestra swung into a flat rendition of 'Come to the Bower.' With a huff, the limelight flared, the curtain drew back before the kinotrope screen, the music covering the clicking of kinobits spinning themselves into place."
Either way, this is really cool! I'd love to work on something like this as a job :)
Threads are 1 dimensional; bands are 2 dimensional.
I guess the spool belts have run out of alignment? I would have guessed they'd have implemented closed-loop positioning for the colour-belt, but it appears not to be the case.
It looks like you followed the basic design of a Van de Graaf generator, so I imagine you had a very difficult time with static eletricity.
How did you handle alignment of the colors? Maybe a gray code and optical sensor on the back side of the bands?
One video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHf2sezptLU
Still, I submitted a picture of Ada Lovelace.
Kudos to the marketing department for giving BREAKFAST (WHY IS IT IN ALL CAPS?) employees a super fun job for a year and a half, but holy cow, this is a huge waste of time and money. They could have gotten more out of Facebook ads.
Amazon Full Time Employees: 154,100
Walmart Full Time Employees:2,200,000
(Based on Yahoo Finance Company Profile Stats)
There is a growing need for Human's to work Lesser Hours going forward rather than more Hours.
Amazon revenue: $89bn.
Amazon is only worth its current market cap if it can increase sales by at least 5x. Which it probably can, but it will take some years.
Wal-Mart is expanding into grocery stores, with their "Neighborhood Markets". (They mean big supermarkets, not convenience stores. Typical size is 45,000 square feet.) Wal-Mart has 40 square miles of floor space worldwide.
Their achilles heal though continues to be browsability and searching. It is obviously a great place to go if you know exactly what you want, but continues to be a poor experience if you are browsing for an item or don't know what you want. There continues to be duplicate listings for the same items (some listed by 1st party and some by 3rd party), and it is very tough to browse items. Once they actually figure this out and implement, that's when this will really become game over (at least domestically)
Not that I take it personally. Amazon went down the path to breaking trust when they came up with Prime. What does it say other than give us money so we won't charge you more. Time, gravity and a slippery slope mean that logic ultimately becomes dominant without heroic efforts of corporate culture. Sponsored ads don't create a culture to help anyone within who might be trying to fight the slide. Hell, Amazon is even in the textbook rental business screwing college students.
The problem for Amazon is that they don't have good locations locked down. Six letter .com domains aren't prime real-estate. All they have is the quality of the sales experience, and the more convoluted shopping for value becomes the better competition looks.
(from "The Everything Store" Bezzos' biography)
Amazon's Q4/2014 net income was -241,000 and they had a P/E of, well, they didn't.
I think Amazon has been one of the most innovative companies of the last decade, but Amazon is going to be a much less attractive consumer option as they start transitioning to business models that require them to actually profit.
I could steal all the lawn mowing business in town if I were willing to mow lawns for free...
While both companies have their pitfalls, it's certainly interesting to continue to watch e-commerce's rise.
Either a glimpse of a bubble in making or tech truly is the new oil.
TLDR; there is a sharing program which installs web service on localhost:4001 that handles sort of magnet links
If DMCA claims were expensive, companies would bother requesting takedown for the most profitable movies/albums/games only and they wouldn't go on autopilot, claiming whatever they think might infringe their copyrights. But then the garage bands and individual artists/musicians would be left out of the game completely, they couldn't use DMCA to take down their music.
On the other hand, how do you prove you are the author unless you have lots of money for lawyers? If you say "I composed this song at home, and published it under CC licensing" and MAFIAA say they represent the copyright holder, is it not clear who owns what?
If there was a digital notary service where you could digitally sign and timestamp a file, that might help a bit. But the downside is that people could take public domain works or someone's un-notarized works, claim ownership, have it stamped and they would begin to hold a stronger position pretending to be the author.
I think this is somehow similar to how indigenous people wondered how the white man could possibly think of owning forests, rivers, and land. They considered Earth unownable, not belonging to anyone but rather people belonging to the Earth. Similarly, natives to the digital world wonder how somebody could possibly think of owning bits, numbers, and copyable files.
Now that's not so funny.
I stopped pirating music since Spotify came along - the price is right and the selection is good enough to keep me engaged for several lifetimes.There is no such thing for movies.
Maybe iTunes, but I'm not willing to pay their price and the selection is far from complete.
So instead of paying lawers and acting like clowns, these guys should invest in a startup which is the Spotify for movies without all the jurisdictional limitations that usually come with such services, because their lawyers are busy fishing pirates on 127.0.0.1...
The lawyer sending these automated DMCA searches tagged their own computer, implying they were pirating the movie.
That's hilarious if it's true.
EDIT: Also, Universal's been doing it LOTS of times before too (via above link).
It has one pitfall which consistently stops me from using it though : poor support with newer releases of Rails, usually due to the Active Record stack not working well with the AR JDBC adapter.
I know some work was being done on a JRuby version of the standard pg gem (without the need for JDBC) which would be fantastic if it was completed and working.
Stumbling over a serious race condition in the first 5 minutes of trying it with real code makes me a bit wary. All the performance in the world isn't much good if it's randomly wrong :/
Did they achieved this via JNI?
I'm very happy to see JRuby 9000 and hope we'll upgrade soon.
And i got to check AWS again and i am pleasantly surprised things have improved dramatically!
If Amazon were to stop and start making a profit, wouldn't they immediately be undercut by the next generation of quasi-ponzi companies who are now willing to sacrifice short term profits?
Anyone has numbers for Google?
Might be able to get more clarity into what they are paying for these undisclosed acquisitions prices, assuming their cost for constructing data farms stays relatively constant.
- Peritor (Ops, Mar 2013)
- ClusterK (Apr 2014, $20M-$50M)
- Amiato (NoSQL, May 2014)
- 2lemetry (IoT, Mar 2014)
- Annapurna Labs (Jan 2015, ~$370M)
- AppThwack (Mobile testing, Jul 2015)
The real fix will require much more intervention than just a firmware flash at the garage.
We'll see at Def Con how much Chrysler really screwed up.
I don't think that's the case, but I still commend them for doing a recall this quick.
Shooting the messenger seems to still be quite a strong reflex for corporations faced with bad news. The way to look at it should be that these guys did Fiat-Chrysler a service. After all, it's not only security researchers that have the ability to write code and that have prolonged access to a vehicle to test.
They seem to be mistaken about the time to write the code, after all, you can write the code and test it on a different vehicle than the one you intend to crash.
Law enforcement typically won't analyze the firmware of all the computers in a car after a single vehicle accident (and it would probably be quite possible to erase the evidence once the car has been given a command sufficient to kill the occupants).
We're all used to the idea that if you put a computer on the internet, it will come under attack. People will try to snoop on the data it handles, or subvert it to use it for their own purposes. So why do we then move on to assume that, if such a system is attached to something safety critical, that those same people who will attack the computer to get at its data or processing power will now move on to attacking the brakes, or the engine, and try to kill people?
Most vehicular crime isn't homicide, it's acquisitive - people will attack vehicle security systems to steal the car, or get access to valuable contents. Sabotaging the vehicle to kill the driver is way down the list.
As a society we tend to assume that physical security is not the only thing that stops random strangers from trying to kill us. We do not all drive around in armored cars in case someone decides to shoot at us from an overpass. We don't all sweep under our car with a mirror for bombs before we get in and start the engine.
And it's certainly not a failing of Chrysler's engineers to adequately consider customer safety that they sell Jeeps which are not bulletproof and which have exposed frameworks on the underside where bombs can be attached.
So why is it that we're so quick to assume that because a safety-critical computer system is exposed to the internet, that this is the worst thing ever?
Is it that as far as physical security of your Jeep goes you only have to trust the people in your neighborhood, but for internet security we have to trust the whole world?
If a compromised device can talk on the CAN bus it's game over since (pretty much) everything listens on that bus so you can't (without a lot of time and effort, implement a way to) pick and choose systems to segregate while maintaining wireless connectivity to those critical system.
Vehicle manufactures get a huge data set sent back to them by vehicles. They use this for stuff like correlating part failures to operational conditions, determining which intermittent wiper setting people use as well as improving the logic for the operation of critical systems (e.g. if my last inputs were $stuff then don't upshift). I wouldn't be surprised if they sold the data as well. McDonalds would love to know where and when people start looking for food. insurance companies would love to have more variables to correlate to risk trivial (e.g. $color cars with $trivial_feature get in accident that cost $really_small_percent $more_or_less than $other_color
To segregate systems you need to be able to pitch to the bean-counters that the cost/benefit of whatever degree of segregation you're proposing beats the cost/benefit of whatever plan the next guy is proposing. These data sets are incredibly valuable to many different parts of the company. The people doing marketing and customer facing stuff would be at a severe competitive disadvantage if they had to wait months (first oil change) o get real world data on feature usage after a re-design.
Sure you could download it at service time..."but we already have a system that does it in near real time, can't we just secure that?"...
TL;DR: Segregating systems involves more than having the engineers wait a few months to figure out if their new tune solved the problem.
because nothing screams quality like a 'decided to leave one day after yet another drop in Consumer Report rankings' and 1.4m car recall!
"No defect has been found. FCA US is conducting this campaign out of an abundance of caution."
What the hell?
The WIRED story's hackers presumably were authorized by the vehicle's owner or operator, so the demo did not "constitute criminal action."
Maybe IIHS needs to include "remote hackability" as a criterion in their testing?
screw that attitude.
I hope government will make the equivalent of whistleblower protection for security researchers that report exploitable flaws, because it's the only way to increase security over time.
i.e. I'm scared as hell that planes are allegedly hackable but researchers aren't really talking about it nor testing it properly because fear of lawsuits.
I know I'll get down voted, but it has to be asked.
I have zero sympathy for the manufacturers. I only hope that, if they decide to go on a witch hunt, they actually seek and punish the morons in power who, most likely for self-serving purposes, let this slide.
This also should raise a ringing cry to rein in DMCA et al. uses that seek to outlaw such research. In this case, the manufacturer has obviated their authority in the matter.
I hope they are laser focused on their demographic and who their customer is rather than try to be the universal solution to coffee. A challenge will be how do you deliver the same exciting experience on a coffee stand without having the focus becoming operations and churning out coffee as quickly as possible. Most people can probably grab coffee at work for free if they wanted to but they choose to go to coffee shops for the "cool factor", and to feel like they are taking a break from their normal routine. If the person(s) running the stand need to be super friendly, engaging, fun, etc. if this is going to really take off, and experience shows us that is no leap of faith as you operationalize and expand locations so quickly.
Wait what? Hasn't this common misconception been debunked, or at least to be shown to be very insignificant when controlling for obvious variables?
What's the source of the butane? I can't seem to find more info on their site.
There are several variations of these running around Australian cities, however they still don't compete directly with cafes, as they provide a different service.
The Philz truck in San Francisco seems to handle this alright, but they have 3 people making the coffee and 1 person taking payments, and they're charging 4+ dollars per cup for a known/cult brand.
I want to know whether there are any in Seattle. It would be nice if there was a map of active Wheelys on their website.
But anyways, seems like an interesting idea and concept. But looks like no free Wi-Fi or a place to sit, which I know some people love that about Starbucks.
What I'm not clear on are the coffee/food costs and margins. The FAQ says you can make $250-600/day. I assume that's gross. It doesn't say what it costs to order the beans, etc. Hopefully the costs are exploitative.
Does anyone know what standard margins for coffee/casual food is?
One of my favourite cafes is run out of a re-purposed electrical closet in the CBD, with a few nearby tables. They have good coffee. You don't need much space.
Wheelys seems like a pretty reasonable idea. Good stuff!
I'd be really interested to see one of these in Toronto
Woah! This is a pretty hardcore version of #4 here: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html
Hardly. Many cities (essentially every city in the Bay Area, for example) either outright ban peddling on public property or thoroughfares or requires a license for it.
I was thinking of something like a two sided /\ sign on top would increase the amount of signage, and increase the height of the signage. A large sign on top that reads "COFFEE" or similar and can be read from a block away might be advantageous. And if need be, it could fold __ flat when not in use (or when local signage laws prohibit it).
Does this startup rely on some technological development that meant it wasn't posible before? eg in making the whole thing small enough; "pour over" coffee (whatever that is); eff/cheapness of solar panels etc?
NB not necessarily a selling point itself, but something that enables one.
Friend of mine bought an old caravan for under $1k and was selling homemade lemonade at street events for a while. Was making hundreds each night, then renting the caravan out for private functions on weekends.
Someone entrepreneurial could buy a few of these and set some keen uni kids to work running them for profit share.
This is shown to be a hit in European cities, where just based on a guess espresso and coffee is more popular. The majority of Starbucks customers are probably buying mixed specialty drinks.
Watching a Sbux barista make just a few drink, they probably go through a gallon jug of milk in minutes at peak times. How much fresh chilled milk can this cart hold? Not saying there's no market, but taking on Sbux seems a bit mis-targeted.
Have these been used inside of enclosed shopping centers/malls? Is the kiosk size cost many of those charge worthwhile to a business such as this? How about at airports? How are small setups like this treated by cities with regards how some do not seem to care for food trucks?
Lots of effort in sales but what about the end product, coffee? In my home town, Melbourne, where the locals are raised on expresso, Starbucks was run out of town. 
Wheely appears to be a trojan brand for expanding other products as well as coffee at the expense of existing franchises in fixed locations. An Uber for fast food products.
 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-08-07/32188, http://munchies.vice.com/articles/this-is-why-australians-ha...
Never the less, I think Wheelys can take on Coffee2Go companies without problems.
I wonder if most people realize that the "innovation" involved has to do with franchising and finances, rather than the fact that it's a cart that sells coffee.
Starbucks is popular because of other factors. For example, not shooshing students that go there to use their wifi (which is usually good)
Maybe the corporate aspect of it even improves this aspect. Nobody will give a f if I'm there (as opposed to a mom and pop shop)
Also the "you know what to expect" factor of chain places also plays a huge part. And as McD is probably beginning to notice, if I go there a couple of times and I have a bad experience, I'm not ever coming back.
YC also backs the bike startups ViaCycle and Vanhawks, and Wheelys represents the use of bicycles in business. In a future with safe autonomous cars, does that make it safer for a bike culture to really take off? And YC can be at the center of a drastic shift to the next evolutional step of the bicycle.
I'd be fascinated to learn more about the tech behind this. Last time I looked into growing your own coffee, the summary was "don't".
grow your own coffee beans on the cart? yea right, that cart will grow enough beans in a whole year to make a days worth of coffee, if you are lucky.
too many, new-agey buzz words for me in that article, along with a LOT of misleading info... building out a small cafe doesnt even cost 100k, let alone 800. and starbucks doesnt pay minimum wage, they offer college assistance and health care. so your own cart doesnt really compare straight across for an hourly wage comparison to be fair.
It was the Apple of it's time, better in many ways than Apple itself with so much potential. Seeing Defender of the Crown for the first time, or using Deluxe Paint, or ProTracker. You just felt like living in the not evenly distributed future where you were in the forefront and everyone without an Amiga was years in the past.
The innocence and magic feeling of all this at the time, unexplored possibilities an amazing time I hope every generation gets to experience in their own way.
Not that it was (is) blazing fast and technologically advanced in comparison to other models but the fact that it seems to have come from a whole another plane of technology.
Surely it helps to have multiple special-purpose chips onboard as it helps to have dense battery pack worth of 500km baked into the chassis. But that's not the thing.
What a 32-bit pre-emptively multitasking operating system with modern library stacks and system services for building user interfaces and applications was to old machines where you poked memory addresses directly to draw something on the screen is quite akin to what an internet-connected fully electrically powered and from-the-ground-up architected smart&mobile device-on-wheels is to clunkers primarily designed to host an oily, fire-burning engine and an appropriate steel drivetrain, with a passenger cabin retrofitted wherever there's space left from the mechanical components.
You could write high-level code and put that space ship spinning on the screen, and still have it rotate more smoothly than in any of the machines from preceding erawhere no operating system or user interface was messing in the way. That was like having the cake and eating it too. And yet you could switch to "insane mode" by suspending the operating system and commanding the special chips directly, and do things people couldn't even imagine on 8-bit machines (and for the most part, on 16-bit machines too).
Amiga had elements so modern that it almost lasted till the end of the 90's, except for cpu power and marketshare. Considering it was born in the early 80's when 8-bit cpus could beep and produce blocks of color on the screen and died (for all practical purposes) in the internet era, that's one long stretch of time where it made the difference.
We had our Apple IIs and TI-99/4As with their 16 colors or less and couldn't imagine anything greater.
Then we went to his house and saw Defender of the Crown, and we were humbled.
I got to be friends with a number of the folks on the system, and at the time, my main system was an Atari 520STfm (it was all we could afford). A bunch of the guys on the board took pity on me, took up a collection, and (secretly) called my mom. A month or so later, a Very Large Box arrived in the mail.
The guys had gotten together with one of their own who owned a computer store, and bought me a used, but well-equipped, Amiga 1000 system, along with an adapter that let me use my Atari monitor with it. The letter that came along with the system said "No smart kid should be without a decent computer. All we ask is that you do the same for someone else when you're able." It made my mom cry.
I used that system every day. Took it to school to show off a couple of times (we were using PS/2 Model 25s there, in comparison). It was used to do titling for the public-access news show my media class produced, among other things. It was my main system up until I had to "upgrade" (blech) to a 386sx-33 so I could run 1-2-3, Wordperfect 5.1, and DBase III+ for college classes. Over the years I acquired numerous A2000s, an A3000 or two, and even an A4K, but nothing beat the fun of firing up that A1000 back in the day.
I turn 41 this year, and have had a great 20+-year career as a UNIX/Linux systems administrator. I'll never forget those guys who pitched in and helped out some kid living in a tiny rural Oklahoma town - they really helped get me to where I am today. To continue the tradition, I build and give away at least 2-3 computers a year to people who are less fortunate. It's the least I can do.
Note that the Platform Studies series (http://www.platformstudies.com) has exciting upcoming stuff.
He goes down to the circuit level, including within microchips, identifies problems with all kinds of tools including spectrum analysers, and shows off some (to me) amazing soldering skills.
Here's a four hour (I kid you not) video of the repair of an Amiga CD32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZK3Rmerg1I
Seems the only thing to degrade in those 10 years is my reaction time.
I was awestruck. I started getting copies of Amiga-related magazines, and saw these amazing three-dimensional pictures of things like balls and rubber ducks. It was like gazing into the future.
Thankfully, my dad was likewise impressed, and within a few months we received delivery of a shiny new Amiga 3000. In anticipation of continuing my pursuit of programming, we got a compiler for an Amiga variant of BASIC, but I ended up focusing on two-dimensional graphics with Brillance, three-dimensional graphics with Imagine, and video editing with a variety of tools.
A friend at school picked up an Amiga 2000 and joined the multimedia production fun. It might be a good thing that we didn't have YouTube back then, as we likely would have published all sorts of embarrassingly poorly-done animations and videos. We persuaded our school to buy its own Amiga computer for us to edit the student newsletter on, but we both left the school the following year, and it was reported that the Amiga got shoved into a storage space, never to be used again.
I tried hard to persuade anyone who would listen to get an Amiga. The IBM-clones and Macs of the day just seemed so flat-out inferior, I couldn't imagine why anyone wouldn't want an Amiga if they just realized what it could do.
I suppose I would have been happy to still be using the Amiga to this day, except that, after the demise of Commodore, it became increasingly (but not surprisingly) clear that support for the Amiga platform was dwindling. Some users have heroically clung to the Amiga even to this day, but even by 1996 or so it was looking prudent to move elsewhere.
Like remembering a corned beef sandwich from a deli you visited twenty years ago, I might be remembering the Amiga greater than it actually was. But even after thirteen years of using modern Apple computers (and iPads and iPhones and what-not), I still feel there was something magical about the Amiga that has not been captured in anything else.
Or maybe the Amiga captured something magical in me.
Even if you aren't old enough to remember how the whole world somehowoverlooked the amazing capabilities of the Amigas, it's an interestingand humbling historical lesson in how the best tech does not always win.
- My first Amiga was an A500, eventually ended up with a chip RAM upgrade, an A520 20MB hard disk and some extra Fast RAM.
- I owned several Amigas in the early 90s, but I actually cried when I sold my A1200 to buy a 486 DX2 66! Why you may ask? Doom. It changed everything.
My father went on to use Logistix extensively in his work, and even to compute results for some school election -- printing tons of pie charts with a dot-matrix.
He also used some graphic effects software (3dtext? Videotext? Can't remember). Because we did not have any video equipment or laser printer, he ended up taking pictures of the screen with his Reflex and then have them printed on actual slides. His colleagues were in awe. Now I can't believe he went to all that trouble!
By the time I actually paid some attention to the manuals and tried my hand at Workbench stuff, Amiga was on its way out. I ended up using an IBM emulator to run WordPerfect, and then just moved to a Windows 3.1 laptop; by then, "real" games had moved to consoles anyway.
It took other user-oriented operating systems about a decade to catch up, and in fact, the hardware everyone raves about in the Amiga fell behind far sooner than the system software.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exec_(Amiga) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARexx
RJ Mical and Dave Haynie are interviewed, who did hardware development for the Amigas, as well as Mike Dailly (creator of Lemmings) and Allister Brimble (composed for some well-known games of the platforms).
Lot's of Dutch inbetween explaining the historical significance, without subtitles, but probably worth a listen to just for what these guys have to say about the platform.
I had gotten my start programming in BASIC on the Apple ][, and was blown away by the stuff I could do using AMOS on the Amiga.
The Amiga 500 was eventually replaced by a new Amiga 1200. Sometime after the end of Commodore (I must have been 14 or so) my parents bought our first PC, a 486 (the latest and greatest at the time) running DOS / Windows 3.1... it just wasn't the same.
An unfortunate clash for the opening weekend with quakecon dates.
"no fstab changes required. The ext4 driver has been able to registeritself as ext for quite some time now, so it's transparent.
Many/most distros have been using the ext4.ko driver for ext3 & ext2 foryears. You may already be using that on some boxes, and not even know it.;)
Some more techincal information here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/97986 thanks madars for the correct url)
This was a nice toungue-in-cheek for Hans Reiser going to prison
Still my favorite filesystem for what was my favorite supercomputing & NUMA company.
The file system wars were an interesting time.
God I've been reading LWN forever. I had already been reading for many years when that stuff was going on.
Edit: Ahh. Looks like I missed "good filesystem for developers to experiment with."
Well, not so much "left" ...
It's a site designed for professional photographers that also happens to have kickass features for casual photographers as well. There's even lightroom plugins to upload directly to smugmug.
One of the best features, in my opinion, is the customer support. They respond within a couple hours. They're super nice and knowledgeable.
I've had an account at smugmug for nearly a decade, and would never go back to free services. Google photos is nice, but the size limitation is definitely a problem for prolific photographers.
(I don't work for smugmug nor do I know anyone who works there, I just love their service.)
I use a similar combination of home-built network storage (no RAID - just manual multiple backups) and glacier for offsite redundancy. Dealing with images as a business, I typically only work on a couple shoots at a time so syncing across devices is not a big concern, but long-term archiving and redundancy is.
Normal people realize that keeping that many photos is a negative value proposition; it's a burden rather than an asset. Rather than trying to hold on to everything, they choose what is actually worth revisiting. This could mean they're a little more selective with the shutter, or they only keep the photos they like.
By all means, keep everything if you want to, but I find it troublesome that storage is considered the problem, rather than making no attempt to cull images. Clearly a great deal of effort has gone into these images to make his various travelogues, so the effort to see which ones make the cut has been done already.
That said, it doesn't seem like a NAS was even needed here. Any reasonable PC MoBo is going to have 6 SATA ports, so you can quite easily make a 4 drive RAID 5. Personally, I just RAID 1 a couple 3TB drives and call it good.
A few things I'd like to add though:
- Mylio (http://mylio.com) is very helpful for syncing your collections across things. Not for everyone but it's worth a look to see if it works. Best thing for me is that it's peer to peer so I don't have to upload my collection to a cloud service to access it on all my devices. It does offer cloud but it's end to end encrypted (allegedly). Best thing is that it lets you configure whether you sync previews, thumbnails or originals to each device and even which photos to sync. Really handy if you want a new shoot on your phone to play with on the train or something.
- You can use Google Drive to get your photos into Google Photos. This lets you keep a bit exact backup in Drive while using your quota for Photos as well. Further, Google Apps for Work Unlimited, through a glitch or deliberately I don't know, offers unlimited Drive storage to accounts even with a single user in their organisation. I pay $10/month for unlimited Google Drive storage. It's advertised as being 1TB for single users so I'm not sure if this is a bug but thought it was worth mentioning.
- Google Photos will (quite helpfully) use the JPEG previews you embed in a DNG photo so if you tend to touch up things in Lightroom, embedding them will ensure that Google Photos displays things in the same way.
Really though, this was an amazingly comprehensive article. Thanks for posting!
Personally, I decided to severely restrict how many images I keep after a trip, so I'm more likely to actually view them years from now.
Keep as many TB local storage as you need (a non pro should probably be fine with a few TB for stills of you cull the imports of near-duplicates and OOF shots etc). Spinning disks cost next to nothing and are good enough.
Then, if you want, use one or more means of local protection, such as mirrored local disks or sync to a NAS, preferably at a remote location to protect against theft and fire but local is ok if you must. If you trust your backup service and you have a very good internet connection you could skip this step and just use a few TB of local storage.
Last and most importantly: have a proper backup. syncing to a copy isn't backup. A backup from which you can restore any file from history, after you corrupt it or accidentally delete it (you will do this, and it will happen many more times than you suffer from a disk malfunction or burglary). Even your own carefully crafted backup solution will fail. So plan for that too (by using a 3rd party service too).
There are several very cheap providers of unlimited backup of this kind, for example CrashPlan. Regardless of whether I used proper backup to a remote storage, I'd still make sure to also backup to a cloud service, or even backup both the PC and the NAS to the same service (at no extra cost if it's an unlimited service such as the CrashPlan 10 computer family plan).
An 8 year old readynas that's still running, it's really slow but it works. I do a sync with that and a local desktop with a big external drive. And then I back up that local desktop to crashplan.
I have a comment about the drives, I generally like purchasing different manufacturer drives for my NAS when I'm buying them in bulk. I always worry about multiple drives from the same batch failing around the same time. It's happened to me before so now I'll buy similar capacity drives but from different models or mfrs.
I've tried doing as suggested here, but here's the problem: if it's too expensive to store your RAW images on the cloud (which it is for most people), then your cloud photo library is really just a proxy of your library. That's not to say it isn't useful, but unless it's synchronized both ways with the original files, you're just asking for disorganization - from my experience anyway. You have to be careful and basically only touch the originals to let changes propagate one-way to the cloud proxy.
If it isn't hosting your RAW files, then it doesn't fill the role of a backup, and if your edits or tagging on the cloud aren't applied back to your originals, then any time/effort you put into organizing and editing your library on the cloud is somewhat wasted.
To be honest, I do use Apple Photo Streams for something similar - but I just treat it as a convenience for low-quality output/viewing of recent photos, mostly from my phone. Even then, the Photo Stream part is still a mess. My main library resides on a NAS (as in the article), is backed up to 2 low-cost cloud backup providers (still much cheaper than hosting a single RAW copy on Google Photos), and I use Lightroom for all actual editing and tagging since it applies to the authoritative library.
My point is - I too look forward to the day where at least one copy of my full library can be hosted on something like Google Photos in the cloud, but we're still a ways off from that being practical. Google Photos can be a convenience in some ways, but at current prices it really doesn't fit what I'm looking for.
Very interesting and well thought out posting, but the above quotation represents a very, very naive understanding of how these arrays work with large, multi-TB hard drives.
In fact, the reality is exactly backwards to what he has written here: with multiple terabytes of data on the array, a single drive failure results in a long, intensive rebuild process that can serve to hasten the failure of the remaining drives.
I am not anti-NAS - I use them myself for critical data - but with 3 and 4TB hard drive, I would only use raidz3 (or equivalent) at this point (and preferably with 12 or fewer drives in the array).
This still makes more sense to me than trying to store it all in the cloud.
 http://zfsonlinux.org/ http://www.mdisc.com/
Have you ever considered deleting some of the photos or videos? I shoot headshots along with my personal projects (RAW files are 20MB+), and I don't generate anywhere close to 1TB of data per year. This is primarily because I only save what I need or think I will need later.
Wondering why a custom built solution was such a pain to maintain to the author - he mentions updates, but once you have a working system, no real reason to update unless there is a feature or security issue that needs to be addressed.
we're surrounded by this stuff day in and day out on every screen we have, i make no effort to keep any of it longer than a few weeks. in fact i have a problem getting rid of old photos, somehow they seem to follow me around on device to device through no fault of my own! they're almost like viruses.
Just install our browser plugin, go to a netflix vid, hit "watch in AltspaceVR", and you'll have a virtual space dedicated for that netflix movie.
Did you start after Netflix switched to HTML5 video? I'm curious how you might've dealt with the old flash player- I basically gave up on any actual control of Netflix in my side project because it was too black-boxy.
It's a really neat idea, and it's basically second-best to watching a video in the same room as someone else. It's really fun to watch shows with other people, have discussions about the show, and share the experience.
References (I didn't make these):
Check the screenshot: http://i.pics.rs/64I0n
Maybe I will open source it when it's done. Btw I used Qt and libVLC.
Here's the source (https://github.com/kristopolous/emptyv) ... most of it was written during the 3 or so weeks that it had lots of traffic, coming from all places, Poland.
I worked hard on the anarchistic anonymous vj feature as a social experiment. It was interesting but not traction building.
One day I'll build something that can sustain traffic. One day...
One of you starts watching a movie, the others start watching the same movie and it asks them "would you like to resume from X". Just say Yes and you're all watching the movie in sync.
I love that you can do this with Netflix now though, this seems like one if those features that could have (was?) In the original release.
Instead of commercial breaks they could have intermissions like old movie theaters allowing people to smoke and chat.
Just using netflix is definitly suitable for the masses too :)
it works for YouTube and local files.
The distribution of mt_rand() return values is biased towards even numbers on 64-bit builds of PHP when max is beyond 2^32. This is because if max is greater than the value returned by mt_getrandmax(), the output of the random number generator must be scaled up.
edit: this post went from 5 points to 1, which I don't care about(in ~500 days I posted less than 10 times and I have ~35 points), but who downvotes documentation, seriously? -_-
The problem is way worse than you think. Check out what this looks like when printed in hexadecimal: http://3v4l.org/XVTgS
Basically, what is going on is that PHP_INT_MAX is 2^63 - 1. mt_getrandmax() is 2^31 - 1. The way mt_rand() makes a random number when the limit is too large is that it makes a random number in the range [0,2^(31)), then it scales it to be a number in the range [0,MAX-MIN), and finally adds MIN.
So in your case, it scales everything by 2^32 and adds 1. Which is why the numbers are* extremely non-random. [See my other comment in this thread for a more detailed explanation and some more test scripts that prove this is what is happening.](https://www.reddit.com/r/lolphp/comments/3eaw98/mt_rand1_php...
My employer is leading the effort to expose a compatible interface in PHP 5 applications so developers can add one line to their composer.json file and start writing code for PHP 7. It's MIT licensed and should nearing its 1.0.0 release soon.
PHP may not do a very good job at ensuring an even distribution throughout the space of possible integers, but for PRNGs in general (especially the quick & dirty ones), the worst place to grab bits from is the least-significant bits.
(my source is that I hung out with a copy of Numerical Recipes in college; Numerical Recipes has a nice chapter for learning about PRNGs, along with example code for a number of implementations)
We have the tech: Strong encryption, Tor-like relays, and the blockchain. What we need is a way to make services based on these technologies not just as easy to use but easier to use for the average Jane.
If the internet as we know it is to survive, we have to crack this nut.
I'm glad Snowden said DNS should be encrypted. From the tweet stream provided by @conflictmedia, that was tied for 1st for most re-tweeted, along with making the Internet for users, not spies. (It should be noted that DNSSEC is not encrypted.)
Too bad his appearance wasn't recorded, but HUGE thanks to Niels ten Oever and Rich Salz for tweeting major points!
My vision iscomplete and planned, all the way until The World Brain! See:https://sherlock.ischool.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html
The first layer, MORPHiS, is a global secure encrypted distributed datastorethat deprecates bittorrent, email and the web so far and is slated forrelease at the end of this Month!
Seehttp://reddit.com/r/morphis for details.
Sorry for reddit; it is because I keep getting shadow banned here for being proSnowden, Etc. Do not worry, MORPHiS is designed to deprecate hacker news! Anyways, the website is morph.is but doesn't launch until the 31st of this month. Read the only article in the /r/morphs subreddit for lots of details on MORPHiS!
However to make it my main browser I'm still waiting for adblocking extensions. I browse with a few tabs opened, one of them start randomly playing an ad video, at least it shows the sound icon on the tab so I know which one to kill.
I also noticed a few UI problems: When pressing the back button with "Ctrl" on, it does not open the last page in a new tab. Surprisingly, I use this feature very often on Chrome & Firefox. Sometimes when opening a new tab, the focus is not in the address/search bar, forcing me to click on it (or pressing Tab until I get it)
They should do benchmarks on lower end systems, such as atom based tablets.
I haven't been using the Windows 10 development builds, so I have yet to use Edge. As a front-end developer, I am excited we are getting a browser that seemingly supports all of the essentials (and prefixless too).
Until another browser implements that (and supports Android phone / tablets), or I can find a third-party service that seamlessly offers the same options, I can't see myself switching from Chrome any time soon.
Renaming your browser won't change peoples' memory of Internet Explorer, even if Microsoft built Edge from the ground up. The average person is still going to be thinking IE when they see it.
Without extensions, I personally am not leaving Chrome - even if it's a resource hog. But it is nice to see how Microsoft is changing their behavior. Competition between products is always a good thing.
This might give you the impression it's normal to hire general managers for businesses. In reality, it's rare that a "small company" (say a turnover of $1m-$10m, for a typical software or services company, or even 10X that) does this.
A clean break between ownership and management is a difficult thing.
Jacques does an admirable job of breaking it down in a way that gets the message across. To go further, I actually think it could be a great topic for an out-of-the-box young economist to take on. Like a modern Ronald Coase's "Theory of the Firm." It's got tentacles in a lot of interesting questions. The unpopularity (these days) of "adult supervision" investor supplied CEOs, for example. The relative obscureness of SMEs as an investment class outside of high risk VC for another.
It would be very unusual for someone to put his/her net worth (say $2m) into a small business unless they can run it. Does an economist-ic explanation exist?
But if we're talking about a 15-person company, the author says:
"This means that before long there will be a general feeling of resentment, after all if you (and possibly your co-founders, also lying on the beach) are going to receive all or at least a very large chunk of the profits then why do all the hard work?"
That big chunk of profits comes from the fact that you took the initial risk, you worked the endless hours at the beginning, you created the whole thing in the first place. Why on earth should they resent you continuing to take your fair share of the fruits of your previous labor? If they have a problem with that, the problem isn't with you, it's with capitalism in general.
You do need to make sure everyone continues to be appropriately invested in the company, including the new CEO. But the idea that you should either run a company or not own it at all is ludicrous -- taken to its logical conclusion, this means investors shouldn't exist!
That is, automate your business to the point that it takes substantially less than one full time person to run it. Kill off all manual recurring tasks, automate all the common customer service interaction, get the infrastructure ticking away so that it stops routinely blowing up on you. Get things down to just a handful of customer emails that actually need a human response, then book that flight to Ibiza.
They have wifi, I imagine. Run your business over coffee in the morning, then go off and live your life.
I think it comes down to what kind of business, what your business is based on (IP, network, patents, technology, marketing) and if you are the kind of person who understand how to hire the right people and delegate the right kind of jobs.
There is always a middle ground.
He doesn't want to retire but also doesn't want to commit to the time requirements of the day to day operation of the company. This wouldn't be a big deal because he has set himself up with some great managers and a solid foundation.
However... about once a month he gets an itch and decides to get in the middle of the smoothly running operation he spent decades creating because he "wanted to help." It just causes chaos and anger by the people running the company for him the other 25 days each month.
I have seen a couple friends successfully rent places they live near.
The way I always describe it to people is that salary != profit. Let's say that you are making $100k a year running your company. How much would you have to pay someone else to do your job with the same level of effectiveness? If it's $50,000, then you're making $50k a year in profit for being the owner. If it's $150,000, then you are actually giving up $50k per year for the privilege of being your own boss.
It's certainly possible to be a non-participating owner and make a good profit on a business. This is what Warren Buffett does with Berkshire Hathaway -- he buys profitable, well-run companies and usually keeps the former owners on to continue operating them. Doing it from the other direction is much tougher, because you either need to make yourself redundant or hire your replacement.
Here's my point: Everyone believes in growth. And everyone believes in small business, but people also believe capitalism is fine the way it is.
And we can believe all of those things at once, and wonder why we have poor people in our society, cheque cashing stores and inequality.
You can believe in those three ideas all you want, but they don't believe in each other.
The CEO remedied this situation by choosing a new CEO from within the remaining senior staff, while giving himself a new position of chief product officer/biz dev.
However, this was all merely a title swap, as the ex-CEO kept tight hold over the finances. So a weird power dynamic formed, as the new CEO was essentially effete. Anything that incurred a cost had to be discussed with the ex-CEO. The new CEO enacted a rigid fiscal policy by reducing headcount and the expenses under his immediate control. Morale fell and the new CEO eventually resigned.
The company is still in existence, and the owner is considering selling it now. Hopefully it's not too late.
So... basically the stock market?
All those points pretty much apply.
I wish the blog author would have addressed the employee-empowered hands hands off approach suggested in 4 hour work week by Tim Ferris. That book seems to suggest (mostly) passive income approach is possible if done right, but this blog doesn't address that alternative to its suggested bad-outcomes.
If they like their job and you redistribute a good share of the profits, I don't see how this can happen.
I remember reading a blog post by Derek Sivers, of CD Baby fame, how he did just that. But I cannot find it now.
This same resentment may (will) occur with early employees if the cofounders are part time. Have same issue at current company.