lolo_

META: Maybe the mods need to look into how certain popular sites treat #, as medium seems to generate a new #<hash> on each refresh. I submitted this 1 day ago, intentionally removing the #<hash> - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10598335 - r0muald clearly caught a better timing for this article but frustrating that an exact duplicate submitted in very close proximity becomes a totally separate submission!

I find him to be very interesting - because the law enforcement officials involved, who must be at least somewhat aware of the propensity of a. sociopaths to be excellent liars and b. for people to confess to crimes they didn't commit (it's shockingly common.)

I think he's guilty of _some_ of what he's accused off, but lies about others.

I get a little annoyed when people talk about how _actual_ implementations of algorithms are just a pedantic detail - no. A language that can do neat tricks for a not-actually implementation of an algorithm which a lot of people then blindly take as a great example of its 'elegance', while requiring a lot of ugliness for a _real_ working implementation, is demonstrating something important I think.

It reminds me a bit of marketing claims vs. reality for a product.

Well I hope I am not one of the ones who've been unhelpful here :)

I am sorry to hear that you've experienced this and it's frustrating for me from my position especially. I am fascinated by the kernel and determined to become a regular contributor (I'm working on a driver atm), but also would obviously vastly prefer a positive and helpful community.

As an outsider looking at how hard it is to move from trivial patches to non-trivial it seems like even getting there is a real challenge, let alone to come in with an attitude that I'm going to stand up to cultural issues, so I wouldn't presume on the latter, but not because I think being abusive or toxic is ok.

I am enthusiastic about becoming a part of the community and always try my best to treat others with respect, so hopefully if I am successful at becoming a regular contributor I can help even in some small way to improve things :) and hopefully as you say there are others who feel the same way.

This makes me wonder if this subsystem is a particular culprit for these issues. It seems like it's pot luck as to how friendly one subsystem is in comparison to another.

That's not to say something shouldn't be done here, but does tally with what I've heard about this in the past.

I have contributed some trivial commits (so far) and though I encountered some harsh comments it was nothing I felt was overly personal. But of course, my experience is pretty limited at this point.

I get the impression that the level of these issues varies wildly depending on the subsystem in question. For example, Greg Kroah-Hartman is friendly and helpful to a ridiculous degree, I literally don't understand how he gets so much done and maintains helpfulness (and he's working on the staging drivers with some of the roughest code in the entire kernel.)

I feel sorry that Sarah has had this happen, and it's sad that this could happen to anyone, but in particular it's sad that it's happened to a woman when we have such a massive under representation of women already in our industry and probably even more so in the kernel.

I don't know what the answer is, but for those areas of the kernel that are a problem a balance needs to be found between directness and talking to somebody like a human being.

As for Linus, I think he gets somewhat misrepresented in many places. His vitriol is reserved for senior kernel maintainers who should know better and do things which (in many cases) could very negatively impact users, I've seen a number of threads where he's been let's say, less than civil, which were all about kernel code breaking user code and the subsystem maintainers saying 'well they're doing it wrong so let's just break their applications'. In those kind of circumstances you're glad that Linus strongly objects.

A quick google suggests space leak == memory leak, is that correct?

Sure, but there's at least the barrier of making the effort to do that, naming the site makes it a google away and if you happen to be in the area it covers it'll be tempting.

It's easier to diet when you don't have a chocolate bar in front of you!

I really think you (or a mod) should edit this to not mention the site name. Regardless of what these people have done (or tried to do) let's not spread the misery further by making it easier for people to find this information.

I guess an important distinction here is popularity by choice rather than circumstances - many basic, cobol, pascal, etc. programmers may prefer to use another language.

Then again many lisp programmers may be in the same situation, e.g. AI or emacs users ;)

I think overall continued popularity is a less interesting metric than actual demonstrations of benefits of a language, as far as we can given how incredibly difficult it is to demonstrate an actual quantitative advantage for _any_ language.

One big problem is the willingness to be honest. If you feel very unhappy and say so, even if it's anonymised there are probably means of finding out who it might be (or the boss might even assume) and maybe even based on that fear an employee won't be honest.

I think the idea of actually checking for this kind of thing is great, I don't just want to attack this, but I think it certainly requires a culture which is genuinely open to this kind of criticism, and in my experience that's incredibly rare.

Data point: of the 28 messages in my spam folder just now (recently cleared down after picking out real LKML messages), 8 are LKML, though all are legitimately spam atm.

I've had the same experience with the LKML lately (been subscribed for about 8 months, generally spam filter has had v. few false positives), can't remember exact numbers, but big, big chunks have been incorrectly labelled.

There seems to be a fair bit of spam sent to the LKML, I don't know whether there's been more lately, but perhaps the large amount of email sent to many people for the LKML and the fact there's a decent amount of real spam sent there, combined with a more aggressive setting is an explanation?

Ha that's a good point ;) but once you factor in opportunity cost for developers, especially ones experienced enough to write a book, it's definitely not a great choice (likely negative.)

Wow, what a really mean-spirited comment, and it's the top one (at the time of writing.) -- did you consider what you said here before writing it? Let me propose a rewrite:-

'If you can't afford to buy this, the official emacs GNU documentation is great - [link]'

Instead you first admit you haven't read it, then imply, but in somewhat weasel words, that it doesn't offer anything beyond what the official documentation offers.

I'm a long-term emacs user and I can tell you that while the official docs cover a lot, they provide more of a reference than a guide, so a book like this is really worthwhile.

Keep in mind the author would have dedicated enormous amounts of time and effort to writing this, and technical book writing is very rarely a profitable enterprise.

I think we need a bit more kindness towards people's work (as well as _constructive_ criticism of course) - how do you think the author might feel reading this on such a prominent tech website? Imagine it was something you worked on for hundreds of hours, dismissed in the top comment, how would you feel? We're all humans, and empathy is already lacking enough in our industry, so think a little before posting next time.

It does amaze me how little attention this got vs. e.g. 'About the supposed factoring of a 4096 bit RSA key' esp. given another related article did well 'UK government quietly rewrites hacking laws to give GCHQ immunity', but there we go.

The veracity _is_ questionable, but if true it's of huge importance and very frightening. It sounds like the typical incompetencies of a poorly managed company, but applied to one of the most sophisticated nuclear delivery systems in existence. I really hope this gets looked into, I for one am going to write a letter to my MP to ask them to investigate.

I think different people often experience different aspects. I've felt that extreme sadness, as well as feelings totally unrelated, i.e. the numbness I talked about.

The point I was making was to contradict the idea that it can _only_ be described as extreme sadness, but in no way discounts that as an experience.

Sorry you got downvoted for that, I for one found our different experiences of this disease quite interesting! Though I'd much rather nobody experienced it...

Unfortunately, though flexbox is nice and a welcome addition, it's not the panacea people make it out to be having used it a fair bit in the past - the details of how it plays with the rest of the layout and the various options are complicated (see http://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/ if you don't believe me), and sometimes the interactions are confusing.

I still think there's scope for a language that compiles to CSS but allows totally intuitive positioning, provides error messages if you make a mistake and generally isn't as infuriating as CSS is. The amount of times I've done something which seemed like it really ought to do what I want and the layout doesn't change is unbelievable. Even assuming vertical alignment is totally solved by flexbox it's still an agonisingly painful thing to work with.

>I disagree that because depression has these qualities that it cannot be thought of as extreme sadness. I think that human experience and emotions are complex, and that for various reasons, extremes of unhappiness may result in these symptoms.

Is this even meaningful? What you're saying is 'emotions are complex so feeling X might just be a more extreme version of Y even though it sometimes shares no properties with Y whatsoever' - doesn't that mean I can now say any experience is just an extreme version of any other?

Schizophrenia is really a lot like extreme happiness! You have any problem with that?

>On the contrary, I don't see why we need to put things into special categories in order to respect people's problems and properly judge their seriousness.

I didn't say put them in 'special categories' (most of the 'mainstream' attitude I experience is that I'm full of shit and should pull myself together, by the way), I said be careful and don't just speculate as if it were a folly in a public place like this, since you risk coming off like you're downplaying it. You can categorise however you like, but _back it up_ and have a little compassion. This isn't a programming language pissing match.

Saying severe depression is a more extreme sadness potentially implies you should do some lovely happy nice things to fix it like you can with milder sadness - much like the usual bullshit I hear about how if only I did more exercise it'd all be fixed and really you can fix it if you just put some effort in! Never mind that the lead PT of the biggest fitness brand in the UK jumped off a cliff, or that many people with seemingly great lives have committed suicide...

Saying something is just more of something else, implies that usual fixes apply, just you need to do more.

I'm not saying you think any of this, but that you need to tread carefully - these are actually I think (and experience) most people's views anyway, even if they don't want to say it, so both for depressives and those who might interact with them, you're potentially doing harm - is you waxing philosophical of more value than that potential harm?

Having suffered from severe depression I sincerely doubt your analysis. There are times where you feel deeply numb and no sense of sadness whatsoever. You'd have to bend over backwards to call that an extended version of sadness, where it somehow eliminates its own emotional experience.

Also I think you should be very careful down this road, even if you don't intend it, it's very very easy to paint it like it's less serious than it is even if you don't intend to. This is something to look at the _evidence_ for.

And that's where electric vehicles come in :)

Also I find it really dismaying the degree to which nuclear has been downplayed. It has risks, but what are those risks against the certainty of global warming?

Yes this is what I said - 'but the evidence is totally overwhelming that it was'. But it is worth highlighting, particularly in the Egyptair case!

I don't think we know enough at this point to be sure of that at all (and we don't even know if it's murder/suicide.) Also I don't think you are correct about the Egyptair flight - that was more of a sudden dive, whereas on the Silkair flight the perpetrator intentionally disconnected the flight data and cockpit voice recorders.

Just because the governments of the countries involved didn't like the outcome of the investigations (far more so in the case of the Egyptair flight) doesn't mean it was covered up by the perpetrators, this was clearly for political/religious reasons - the failure mode suggested by the Egyptian investigators was totally unsupported by evidence.

Of course it's really early so you have to be very careful as to making judgements at this point, but if it really is pilot murder/suicide there is some (limited) precedence:-

* An EgyptAir flight in 1999 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

* A Silkair (Singapore airline) flight in 1997 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185

There is debate in both flights as to whether it was murder/suicide, but the evidence is totally overwhelming that it was. Horrific but thankfully massively rare (as you might expect.) I do hope this isn't the cause here :(

Actually Metallica uses Axe FX II for all tours like I said...! Maybe they've not updated this page.

[0]:http://www.g66.eu/articles/890-metallica-backstage [1]:http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/87016-met... [2]:http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/13217/metallica-confirm...

That's some really lazy google'ing there btw...!! Look at the top 3 results for https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1....

Are you hoping that I just... made up that point? I find it interesting the degree of denial audio guys have with this stuff. The Axe FX is a really amazing and inspiring piece of machinery that allows for a huge artistic freedoms and is basically the product of one guy's dedication to accuracy (many amps are modelled to the extent of their entire circuitry being simulated as well as precise physical models of the valve sets which you can change, etc. etc.) - when I wonder why the Axe hasn't got the love it deserves (though there's growing love for it) the reaction of 'not the same as analogue' guys reminds me why :)

Sure. Interesting how confident you are in this assumption - there are plenty of audiophiles who claim they can definitely night and day hear the difference in 2 brands of speaker cable. So presumably you've blind tested yourself and are definitely sure it's not bias, or wishful thinking, or feeling special because you've got the real deal.

The AXE FX II models the differences with tube amplification that you're talking about.

I also don't like that quote any - by the logic of that quote MP3s and CDs are equally rubbish recordings that have no room for expression? Or are we only extending it to what suits your view?

There are a vast number of ways to customise a real tube amp (I've owned a Mesa Boogie Mark IV) and an Axe FX II (which I currently own.) A poorly setup mesa vs. one that's been carefully configured will be night and day as well. Did you factor that in? Was there a tone match? Actually the Axe FX doesn't claim to emulate particular models precisely in many cases (see http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Amp:_all...)

My point is you dismiss it as if you can know for sure - go do some blind testing where these factors are taken into account (you can start with a skeptic's view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EtxHlJ2FPo) and then see if your certainty is affected.

Finally, Metallica have chosen to do all live shows using only Axe FX's. So obviously you know better than this small band who barely tour.

I know HN is basically turning into the new reddit, but comments like these where you just make a statement and then act as if it's established then go on to quote some guy really make me wonder whether reading the comments section is going to continue to depress me forever at this point.

While all of these points are great advice, I think it's important to check whether this is something deeper.

In my experience with serious depression, advice like this actually doesn't work, there was a period I was doing all of these things only to find it did nothing, which was disheartening to say the least.

So by all means do this, but if things persist, speak to your doctor!

It's interesting to hear that other people have had similar experiences :) I was also surprised as to what degree you can get an insight into social skills just from interacting with people during the interview.

I've given a lot of interviews (>100) and while I totally accept it's a best guest and imperfect, I find that you get more out of fizzbuzz and the like than meets the eye.

Firstly, I certainly agree unnecessary algo questions for a job that doesn't involve algorithmic problem solving on a day-to-day is silly and leads to false negatives.

But the simpler problems give you more than just the basic 'can you code' test - it gives you an insight their into thought process.

For example, seeing how somebody progresses from:-

   for(var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
       if (i % 3 == 0)
           console.log('fizz');
       else if (i % 5 == 0)
           console.log('buzz');
       // ah hm both % 3 and %5...
    }

To:-

   for(var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
       if (i % 3 == 0 && i % 5 == 0)
           console.log('fizzbuzz');
       else if (i % 3 == 0)
           console.log('fizz');
       else if (i % 5 == 0)
           console.log('buzz');
       ...
    }

And dealing with the fact they have a mistake that needs fixing is always interesting to observe, and gives you insight into how they approach problems.

It seems so incredibly trivial and irrelevant at first hand but shows you a lot (assuming they've not seen it before.) I've been really surprised by this.

I suspect the idea of there being a science of this is a bit of a mistake - there's plenty of stuff that involves so many factors that it's really hard to know the really ideal approach. A quick look at the actual state of software engineering studies (30 undergrad students != all programmers) or e.g. macroeconomics should give you pause.

Certainly loads of scope for improvement though, I agree wholeheartedly!

I'm not so sure, I've seen these precise accusations made against systemd, so he is certainly responding to genuinely perceived flaws.