haalcion3

Read my response- I wasn't disputing ownership, nor was I disputing the Time Warner.

I should have only quoted "AT&T just wants some content production companies" because the rest seems to have confused you. I wasn't disputing ownership.

> Time Warner Cable is not part of Time Warner, so they're not consolidating service providers. AT&T just wants some content production companies.

That might be what they say, but I think it's to compete with Google. While Google may have given up on further fiber rollout after the existing ones, Google still plans to continue to expand and compete with AT&T and other broadband providers but as a wireless provider. Google Fi is just the start. When they bought up Motorola they ended making a better phone themselves (the Pixel). They're using Sprint and T-Mobile for Google Fi now, but plan to become a better wireless data provider.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether these plans will work.

If any of those things happen, you'll need clean water. In addition to storing some water, you'll need a renewable supply. Though distillation is the best technique, some other options are discussed here:

http://www.practicalsurvivor.com/emergencywaterfiltration

Aside from reading how to make a filter yourself with mosses, carbon, and stones, this is one that's recommended: Sawyer Products SP191 Point Zero Two Bucket Purifier Assembly Kit with Faucet Adapter

As for shelter and heating/cooling, some interesting ideas here like using a tent indoors: https://dengarden.com/home-improvement/How-to-keep-warm-in-t...

More ideas:

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-37923.h...

http://urbansurvivalsite.com/ways-to-stay-cool-without-power...

Go solar, assuming the related equipment isn't damaged:

http://news.energysage.com/cheapest-solar-panels-price-per-w...

http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/solar-to-get-crazy-cheap/

You should watch in full. It was really nice.

Summary:

* It is assumed that there was no single reason for the "collapse of civilization" (in Aegean, Eastern Mediterrean, Eygpt, and Near East) between ~1200-1000 BC. At the time, it seems there were droughts, famines, earthquakes, invaders, and rebellions; havoc was caused, international trade routes cut, and many cities were destroyed.

* Parallels drawn at end to modern society with exception of the migration and/or invasion of "sea people" (actually people from several areas).

* Eric then at end says that he's not in a position to provide advice for what we should do, but seems to suggest that when history runs its course, it is likely that good things come from the destruction, citing the Alphabet and monotheism as coming after the 1200-1000 BC collapse (end Bronze Age) and fresh growth coming after a large forest fire.

I think the forest fire at the end could have been left out. While I like the optimism he was trying to relay, I think that some could take it is a reason for actively trying to light the powder keg by causing further destabilization in order to bring about a renewal.

Also, the problem with comparing the dark ages then to what would happen today is that they weren't that bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages

Trade was not relied on as much as it is now for food, material to build shelter, fuel for transportation, etc.

Many countries today could not become self-sufficient without a great deal of death and disease if trade routes were cut off.

And, our civilization is more at risk because we rely on electronics and electricity. If a large portion of the electronic equipment were rendered unusable by a well-coordinated set of strong EMP's/nukes going off (unlikely), a very large coronal mass ejection (more likely), or cyberattack on the electrical grid (most likely), that would disable our water, food production, hospitals, and heating/cooling. Few have the resources they need to survive or even physical books to teach themselves anything that would be useful (plants in their area that are safe to eat, how to build weapons and hunt, how to find fresh water, remedies for disease using local plants). Many have not made social connections with neighbors.

Note: EMP/CME cannot be mitigated by storing an extra phone or computer in a Faraday cage, even if you were to have a few bikes to generate electricity for it. What are you going to do with it other than use a text editor to store recipes for roasted squirrel and dandelion stew?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3838433/The-D...

http://www.federaltimes.com/articles/emerging-focus-on-cyber...

> SpaceX has no prospect of being able to afford the very large investment — at least $10 billion — required to develop a launch vehicle of this scale.

Adjusted for inflation, US gov't spent the equivalent of $65 billion/yr in the 1960's to get a man to the moon:

http://www.popsci.com/real-cost-nasa-missions

To give it some context, here are the Mars failures:

Soviet Union/Russia: 1M No.1, 1M No.2, 2MV-4 No.1, 2MV-3 No.1, 2M No.521, 2M No.522, Kosmos 419 (3MS No.170), Mars 96 (M1 No.520), Mars 1 (2MV-4 No.2), Zond 2 (3MV-4A No.2), Mars 2 lander (SA 4M No.171), Prop-M Rover rover (SA 4M No.172), Mars 4 (3MS No.52S), Mars 5 (3MS No.53S), Mars 6 (3MP No.50P), Mars 7 (3MP No.51P), Fobos 1 (1F No.101), Fobos-Grunt

US: Mariner 3, Mariner 8, Mars Observer, Mars Climate Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander, Deep Space 2

China: Yinghuo-1

UK/Europe: Beagle 2, Schiaparelli EDM lander

Japan: Nozomi (PLANET-B)

Also: Soviet Mars 3 lander (SA 4M No.172) landed, so counted as partial success, but contact lost 14.5 seconds later. And Soviet Fobos 2 (1F No.102) orbited successfully then lost communications during landing, so a partial success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars

I'd like to discuss the following comparison in: https://vuejs.org/guide/comparison.html#Angular-2

> Vue 2.0 seems to be ahead of Angular 2 according to this 3rd party benchmark. ( http://stefankrause.net/js-frameworks-benchmark4/webdriver-t... )

The latest benchmark provided is actually:

https://rawgit.com/krausest/js-framework-benchmark/master/we...

But, Angular 2 is v2.1.1 now, released 2016-10-20. Someone should update: https://github.com/krausest/js-framework-benchmark

However, as they say, "In terms of performance, both frameworks are exceptionally fast and there isn’t enough data from real world use cases to make a verdict."

And Angular 2 Hello World is easier than they make it seem in the comparison:

> starts out with an app that uses ES2015 JavaScript, NPM with 18 dependencies, 4 files, and over 3,000 words to explain it all - just to say Hello World.

It's just the following with a lot of documentation that could be simplified:

  mkdir angular-quickstart
  (add package.json)
  npm install
  mkdir app
  (add app.component.js)
  (add app/app.module.js)
  (add app/main.js)
  cd ..
  (add index.html)
  (add styles.css - optional step)
  npm start

Also, it makes the case that Angular2 is "enterprise" because many use TypeScript with it. But, TypeScript is optional in both Vue and Angular2, so people could just as easily make the argument that Vue is "enterprise" because it supports TypeScript.

Finally, it's true that Google uses/develops Angular2, so that's some significant backing. If you want to see who's using Vue:

https://github.com/vuejs/awesome-vue#projects-using-vuejs

That doesn't mean anything on its own, though. It could be just fine to use and expect to continue to be hyped.

And for those that missed it, here's another way to reduce fuel usage: plasma.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12365723

This is a misleading title and conclusion. The study showed a huge benefit of TDD over Waterfall, and it is only when compared to ITL that it was found to not be better.

But moreover, I think it's important to understand why Beck pushed for TDD.

TDD is like saying "I'm going to floss before I brush every time, no matter what."

But, when people don't do TDD they typically aren't all saying "I'm going to brush and floss afterwards every time, no matter what."

Instead, most say "I'll floss regularly at some point, but I don't have time now, and it takes too much effort. I'll floss here and there periodically, maybe before my monthly meeting or big date night."

Another reason Beck pushed for TDD was method and solution complexity reduction which results in lower time and cost required for maintenance because code is simpler to read and understand. Again, with ITL, you're still writing tests for everything, so you'll see those benefits. However, if you fail to write some or most tests, some developers will write overengineered solutions to things and have overly long difficult to follow methods that will make maintenance suck more resources.

If you want to go beyond this study, though, Beck, Fowler, and DHH had a critical discussion about TDD in 2014 that's worth checking out:

http://martinfowler.com/articles/is-tdd-dead/

It comes down to this: are those developing the language thinking about how to add features just to try to hone and hold on to the enterprise developers that still use it, or are they thinking about what would make it more fun, productive, and practical?

Java's going to be around a long time. Those that stick with it will be fine. COBOL programmers made a lot of money in 1999, and some people still use Fortran.

But, Java's original big mantra was "write once, run anywhere." Such idealism then. Cool things have been done in the past few years, but can't we do more?

Been coding Java for close to 20 years. Can anyone show me what's being done in the language to bring on newcomers, or did that ship sail 10-15 years ago?

Some ideas that would bring people back:

* Wildly new, terse, and clear syntax and a great library of built-in tools that are briefly and intuitively named.

* Easily write and design interfaces that generate both/either back-end or matching integrated front-end code which is off in its own directory and can easily be used by existing JavaScript and HTML.

* Similarly be able to generate the JavaScript front-end code that use those JS client libraries with easily writable/pluggable generators so that it can generate Angular 1.x, 2, ReactJS, Bootstrap, etc. in "best-practice" ways that can be updated frequently as the community changes.

* Simultaneously provide the option to serve very similar pages using straight HTML, degrading even to the point that a text only browser could use the site easily.

* Easily define responsiveness of pages.

* Support multiple 3D, 4D, etc. interfaces with customizable inputs to be forward-compatible without overdoing complexity (i.e. it's really pluggable).

* Similarly support generation of almost any kind of service integration, with easy pluggable authN/R.

* Easily scalable.

* Relational, noSQL, versioning DB (noms) support.

* Make fun books for kids and a site where they can share what they've written, write games, build things, etc.

* Make it integrate with every browser, even some older versions, operating systems.

* Make it compile low-level vs. byte code so it's fast as shit.

> When Max picked up the phone, you should have exclaimed, “Hey, Max! It’s a pleasure to chat. I would love to hear what you’re up to.” And you should have said it genuinely.

Should have, yes, if you really felt that way. And if you can feel that way geniunely, that's the best.

However, I don't think it's right to lie like that if you don't really feel that way. You can go a long way being nice without lying.

But, on don't just give up and say, "I'm just not nice." That's a problem, and if you feel that way all the time, you should go see or talk to someone: a family member, a friend, a GP doctor, a psychiatrist, or anyone that will listen and help you figure out the real problem. You might need more sleep. You might need medicine. You might need a chiropractic adjustment. You might need to vent. You might need to just spend time with another person. You might need to be alone in nature.

Kubernetes:

http://kubernetes.io/

Google Container Engine:

https://cloud.google.com/container-engine/

Open-source MapReduce implementation:

https://gigaom.com/2015/02/18/google-open-sources-a-mapreduc...

https://github.com/google/mr4c

Definitely "not quite", as it is about shipping containers, but an interesting read.

Read:

https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.3.0/doc/syntax/precedence_rdoc.h...

Live it. Love it. It's not that hard.

It's certainly easier than the following (granted that it isn't an order of ops thing, but it's much more convoluted):

https://dorey.github.io/JavaScript-Equality-Table/unified/

And, as probably everyone knows, Google runs everything in containers and has been using containers for a decade:

http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/03/22/decade-container-cont...

Docker may be flawed, but containers aren't. If you need some enterprise leader to tell you this instead, here are some Gartner posts showing this is the way:

VMs may be well established and "magic quadrant", but they are also on decline, and containers make better use of hardware/resources:

http://www.informationweek.com/cloud/infrastructure-as-a-ser...

It's important what you use to roll out containers and requires forethought:

https://www.gartner.com/doc/3267118/containers-change-data-c...

> If you are not replaceable, you are not promotable.

Not accurate. You can be promoted and take on additional responsibilities and/or title.

Two things:

* It's vs. not v.s.

* If you want to copy a site 100 times, go for it. But I know very few that ever thought that was a great idea, and each time it was a very specific case. Yes there are client-specific features and multi-tenant sites, but that's not what he said. He said "copy vs. abstraction" which is the opposite of refactoring.

As an aside, I'm really having trouble understanding how people in the HN community could be thinking I'm wrong on this.

I think I need to go to a forum that's more grown-up if this is how things are here now.

This is a fairly well-written post with some good ideas and some generalizations that are going to get somebody in trouble if they follow all of them, e.g.

> TL;DR — Duplication is better than the wrong abstraction

Woah, horsey, hold on a moment!

While it's true that an abstraction can get you into trouble, that's not always true.

Over my many years I've heard a number of people say: "We have 100 copies of the same site, but slightly altered for each client, and we don't have time to go back and refactor them, we can't upgrade them, and we're three major versions behind. Want to come work for us? (Silence.)"

I've only heard one person say, "We refactored X and it bit us in the ass, because the developer didn't check when he/she was altering it and accidentally changed behavior for everything."

Is this the most the word "fuck" has appeared in a technical paper? It looks like it.

I've been wanting to use something like this.

But...

* It's a big jump from relational or noSQL DB's, so there aren't (m)any adapters that I can see for it for JPA, ActiveRecord, etc.

* I'd really like to see a benchmark for each noms implementation compared to postgres, mysql, oracle, and mssql server, if there is a way to do apples-to-apples.

* "noms" is unfortunately is really bad for SEO because noms is a common word in French. If it could be nomsdb or nomnomnoms or something less exactly French, that'd be better. It's going to be tough to find support online easily otherwise.

* SQL compatibility.

* Fault tolerance (how easily does it corrupt), HA, mirroring, full/partial replication, sharding, archival, partial history truncation, etc.

It seems a little like a dolphin jumping into a pool of hungry sharks. It might be more evolved and more capable in some ways, but it's going to get its ass handed to it on speed and lack of features.

Still- I can't wait to try it.

> When a large employer raises its wage a big chunk of people who work a few hours at a second job stop working that second job.

With the U.S. underemployment rate at 12.9%, having additional jobs available for people to take shouldn't be a bad thing:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/205240/us-underemploymen...

> I'll look it up if anybody's interested.

You should post it. Definitely sounds interesting to me.

> once an article is published in some approved venue, it should be taken as truth

And I agree with the author that it shouldn't.

A good point is made about the arguments for releasing study findings in blogs, where discussions can be had in comments and perhaps the content of the blog amended as needed.

I definitely think that the old way of publishing studies needs to change. They need to allow discussion. Those that publish the studies and those that read them need to critique and possibly conclusions be amended. And to get this to happen at an intellectual level, students and others in academia and research should be funded more by taxes and possibly be required to do critiques and duplicate other studies to some extent.

For too long we've assumed the bodies of accumulated knowledge in the sciences to be fact without dispute; that's not science. Science is all about finding models that work and gathering data and trying to draw conclusions from it. Science was never meant to be about facts; it is all about understanding. Though some understanding may be innate, much of human understanding comes from experience. While we can build upon previous "knowledge", time over time we've seen what we held to be science fact proven false, e.g. earth is flat -> it's round but the sun goes around it -> it goes around the sun, and flies spontaneous generate from feces -> flies lay eggs in feces. If we'd never allow criticism, we'd never have progressed.

Science should be about keeping an open mind and accepting there is much we don't know, even if you believe and have faith in something. Einstein believed in God, and Hawking is an atheist. Both are scientists, and both have had theories proven and disproven. We are human, and we must continually strive for understanding knowing some ideas may be right, some may be wrong, and that ideas will change.

> Paying more results in a better class of applicant

In higher populated areas, yes.

In lower populated rural/areas, not necessarily. In fact, by raising wages in rural areas, additional money coming in from income taxes could be funneled into infrastructure, poorly-funded schools, and law enforcement. This would in theory help produce new areas of innovation and growth which in turn help provide more tax revenue for the state and country. It could also bring more people out of poverty, reduce crime and violence, and help to shutdown meth labs which are more common in rural areas.

I think there are some good arguments against raising wages of workers, like much higher wage workers already making enough to be so comfortable as to not require more (depending on how they pay their employees if they are a small business), or to things such as some cases showing that raising minimum wage causes inflation which causes the quality of life of everyone over the minimum wage to go down, such as: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0419-goldberg-min...

However, for most of those reading HN, salary raises have more to do with being competitive, in which case paying more for a better applicant is a good thing.

What you say is true, however I think despite there being levels of salaries/pay that are excessive for some employees and studies that indicate that there are better motivators than salary/pay, from what I'd read, Walmart had not been paying employees adequately or giving them adequate training, so anyone who dismissed what they did as "wrong" I think is misinterpreting arguments for high pay as "paying employees more is always right" vs. "in some cases, employers could be providing a better customer experience and encouraging sales and growth longer-term by paying their employees more."

Also, please read:

http://www.keithrull.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/net...

While it's not always applicable, paying more for the best is not a bad idea in dev and IT. Just be sure that you can survive up to 100% of the top people on your dev and IT teams getting replaced by ensuring you have good design, good code, good management, good training, and good documentation.