The problem here is there's no way to figure out the "spirit" without having followed a rather extensive history - and the fact that the same justifications are repeated every time the rule is questioned in any way is testament to your already realizing that.
Why not just have the rule say what's actually meant, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then it's clearer for the rule to say that, instead of the vague, terse prohibition on complaints.
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.
Keeping it terse and relying on "spirit" is an excuse to maintain that aribtariness.
As with all of HN's rules, you need to understand that rule from the spirit and not just the letter of the law. The intention is to avoid general prosecution of everything/anything about a company, because hiring posts are not a good context for that. Otherwise what happens in a large, open forum like HN is that simply the appearance of a name begins to attract every grievance or accusation or concern that's floating out there.
Some of those grievances, accusations, and concerns are surely valid. But sometimes they're the one-sided productions of disgruntled internet commenters—I can tell you from long experience that there's a lot of that out there too. And it's often not easy to tell the difference.
What tools does an internet forum have to adjudicate such things? Mostly just thorough discussion and debate by the community. That may or may not bring out the whole story and a fair conclusion; even in the optimal context there's no guarantee that such a discussion will arrive at the truth or rise above the level of a mob piling on. But what's clear is that a "Who Is Hiring" thread is just a terrible context for that sort of cage match. Hence the rule that we just don't go there.
If you're talking about your sibling comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22247530, it was flagged by users. I didn't see it, nor did any other moderator touch it. I'll unkill it and reply now.
The problem here is there's no way to know the "spirit" without knowledge of its history.
Why not just say what you mean, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then why doesn't the rule say that?
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.
I get that you feel strongly against this rule and how we choose to moderate the Who Is Hiring threads. But we've been over this at least three times, for over a year now, and I'm not sure what else to say. I don't see anything new to respond to here. You just strongly disagree. That's fine; I understand your argument and it's a good one; it's just not as strong, in my mind, as the opposite consideration. It's my job to make this call, so I've made it. Continuing to prosecute the case is unhelpful, and escalating like you've just been doing is particularly so.
I do disagree with the rule, but I fear you're having a knee-jerk reaction either to me or to any criticism of the rule and thereby missing my point, which I don't believe you've addressed at all:
If you can explain in a short, simple sentence what the broader purpose of the rule is, then do so in the rule itself. Brevity may be the soul of wit but, but I expect a higher standard than rule wittiness from HN. The https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html do this fine.
Wouldn't you rather have compliance than enforcement?
I think you might have a mistaken idea of how precise such guidelines can be. There are always border cases and exceptions. Trying to nail them down completely makes them complicated, which only generates more border cases and exceptions, not to mention the literalistic sort of objections that only consume time and generate even more objections.
That's why both the HN guidelines and that Who Is Hiring rule are written in simple language that gets the bulk of the point—the spirit of the law—across, without pretending that there isn't still room for interpretation. Readers are expected to interpret them reasonably, and in practice this works just fine. Sometimes they interpret them differently from how we do, and then we try to explain better, on a case by case basis. It's ad hoc and imprecise, which is exactly how something as messy as a large internet forum needs to operate.
No, I'm not mistaken about precision because I never brought it up. It's a strawman solely of your own construction. (I, instead, suggested a much less precise rule, prohibiting all replies/discussion.)
You're implying that the rule here is written like the guidelines, but it isn't.
The guidelines provide some kind of explanation, reasoning, or purpose adjacent to a rule.
The "try explain better, on a case by case basis" doesn't actually succeed, only the same reason, in, perhaps, a different word order.
Surely you don't need that kind of repetition of explanation of purpose for the guidelines, since it's already there to be read. Why such resistance to doing that here, too?
What about the ongoing cost of waste and eventual cost of decommissioning? Are those affected by quantity of fuel used (or, more specifically, by Transatomic's design)?
When a reactor is built in the US, the operator will start paying into an account for waste disposal. This is included in the cost of energy production. Since high level waste quantities are pretty low for nuclear reactors (About 27 tons a year)[1] disposal of fuel isn't the largest issue.
Decommissioning on the other hand is remarkably expensive because of secondary nuclear waste like contaminated reactor vessels and concrete make up 99% of the nuclear waste.
Indeed, appending an empty string to -i doesn't modify it in any way, AFAIK.
It's that the GNU version doesn't require an argument, but, if an argument is to be provided, it must be done as part of the flag, not as a separate element of argv. The MacOS version allows either way of providing an argument, so -i.orig tends to be portable (assuming the -i flag is supported in the first place).
Differences in how "traditional" (be they sysv or bsd) versus gnu utilities handle flags and arguments [1] is very well rooted in history, and is hardly unique to sed.
I suspect the main reason this has been forgotten is that Linux, which ships with gnu utilities, has been so dominant for so long, though, even before that, it was difficult to find a then-current unix on which gnu utilities couldn't be installed.
[1] As the sibling comment points out, the source of difference is getopt, of which there were more than just two versions.. including not even using a library
This strikes me a bit like a "doctor, it hurts when I go like that" problem.
What's the use case [1] for using a zero-length suffix argument (i.e. editing the file "in place" with no backup)?
It's not as if sed is operating on the file actually in place. It uses a temporary file anyway. Varying levels of reliability/portability can be achieved by controlling that temporary file (or subsequent artifacts) oneself, the first level being just to "rm" the backup.
[1] Assuming this is in scripting, since the interactive situation is easily enough adjusted on the fly
Heh, if I had a dollar for every time I have encountered "what are you doing" while dealing with shell, or (worse!) Makefile, tomfoolery in open source projects, I'd be retired. So, in some sense you're right, but ultimately in the "but it doesn't matter" way because I'm not the only one writing shell, nor the only machine upon which things have to build.
At some point, though, if you're the one complaining about a specific detail, in a way, you're the (only) one.
I've seen plenty of un-portable shell scripting, too, but my professional experience includes a time where, essentially, no software [1] could be assumed to be portable, and I did get some dollars for every time, since it was part of my job to ensure as consistent a build environment as possible.
In light of your clarification, my question becomes: isn't it actually good to have such assumption-breaking differences in that they call attention to something that is likely to have a broader pattern of non-portability, in which case a broadly effective [2] workaround can be applied?
[1] Even/especially GNU tools, where there was something of an assumption that the OS would provide at least fairly complete BSD-compatibility. The existence, and evolution, of libiberty and the autotools, among others, should be instructive.
[2] e.g. installing (all the) GNU tools and putting them first in the path on a system that otherwise uses "traditional" syntax
> the outperforming endurance of DNA compared to any modern hardware
This struck me as a strange analogy, considering DNA's inherent fragility, but it would make more sense compared to modern software than hardware.
Alternatively, it also makes sense if "hardware" means a particular model/architecture, with DNA corresponding to an HDL, rather than an instance of hardware (e.g. single CPU, server, or smartphone). A frequent enough topic on HN is the challenge archivists have with archaic software and data formats, even if all the original collections-of-bits are faithfully preserved.
DNA is not fragile, and can act as a very stable long-term storage medium.
DNA in living cells has some fragility because it is in an aqueous solution and also actively used to generate RNA. DNA out side of cells is even more fragile, it will inevitably be eaten by bacteria. But put DNA in the right sterile environment, it can last for thousands of years and has great resistance to electromagnetic interference.
This has echos of No True Scotsman. Computer storage media also have ideal conditions that can be used to extend their lifetimes (though, granted, not indefinitely, AFAIK).
What about in real conditions, subject to things like temperature variations (including "extreme" heat that non-operating computer hardware can do just fine in), exposure to light, humidity from the air (to put it back into aqueous solution occasionally), and common oxiders found floating around in the air?
Could one rely on an arbitrary single strand to last even 5 years in an office environment, or are numerous, RAID1-style, copies required to maintain fidelity?
That hasn't been my experience, at least not on any suitable time scale.
I strongly suspect that the vast majority of those of us who have worked somewhere "not more capitalized and viable" than the vendor share that experience.
Even when a vendor's support engineer is fully capable of solving the problem, the sense of urgency can't reasonably be expected to match that of a much smaller customer facing potentially catastrophic data loss (or other existential-threat-level consequences).
Vendors have support plans and SLAs so if you need 24/7 support then make sure that is indeed what you're paying for.
I do not see how having spare engineering talent capable of reading, editing and running a custom database build is the more realistic or faster option for any business in case of issues.
> Vendors have support plans and SLAs so if you need 24/7 support then make sure that is indeed what you're paying for.
Those are totally useless during an existential crisis without associated indemnity (which any vendor would be crazy to provide) against loss due to failur to perform.
> I do not see how having spare engineering talent capable of reading, editing and running a custom database build is the more realistic or faster option for any business in case of issues.
I don't see how it isn't, considering that "custom database build" could be so simple as to be trivial. In the GP's case, it was merely using a specific version.
Even the characterization of the required engineering talent as "spare" seems incongruous, as, in small companies, the talent requird to handle unexpected problems with technlogies fundamenta to running the business is essential, not superfluous.
The proof is in the pudding. Plenty/most serious users of open source databases become customers of the relevant companies. The commercial license is usually a small fraction of the potential cost of an outage.
I'd argue that it's not oversampling at all, but, rather, that the measure of "average bus arrival time" is what's invalid or misleading.
After all, the point of the bus arrivals isn't in service of the bus (or driver) but of the passengers. Observed average wait time at each bus stop is a better measure. The even better measure would be average wait time weighted by number of passengers [1].
[1] which is tougher to measure empirically, or even model, than just average wait time for that one person, since it requires counting passengers boarding, not just bus arrival times.
@mmt to clarify, you seem to be treating bus stops independent of alternative means of transportation. Measuring the average wait time of people at the bus stop is not enough: there are people who chose to ride a bike today instead of waiting at the bus stop, because of what happened to them yesterday at the bus stop.
> you seem to be treating bus stops independent of alternative means of transportation
Perhaps you misunderstood my point, which was more about data and statistics, as is the article itself, rather than transportation.
A similar argument could apply to the article's example of "average class size", where that's a valid statistic when observed by a teacher (or facilities manager), but misleading to a potential student. Something like "average size of a freshman's classes" would be more meaningful to a prospective student, and "oversampling" would not be a valid complaint there, either.
> instead of waiting at the bus stop, because of what happened to them yesterday at the bus stop.
It sounds like you're suggesting that there's an even better measure than the two I proposed, rather than the original measure being better. If so, I don't dispute that there could be many more, as I never claimed "best".
In this instance, though, measuring people who never show up to the bus stop in the first place is impossible, and even measuring those who showed up but abandoned waiting (i.e. never boarded) is impossible without additional instruments (whereas, presumably, electronic fare collection equipment could closely enough approximate counting boardings).
Wow that is...quite the edit lol. I'm all for small corrections and addendums, but completely changing the meaning of your comment from an attempted callout is something else.
I think you (and the OC) will find that, with dryers, there's really not much room to gain efficiency. It's not as if modern dryers are using a heat pump instead of burning gas [1] or "burning" electricity with resistive heating.
[1] and natural gas tends to be cheaper than electric heat pumps, especially nowadays
> there is an almost 10 year old Miele dryer in my apartment, with a heat pump.
I stand corrected. I'd be curious if it's actually any more efficient, especially if the heat it's pumping comes from gas, oil, or resistive heating (in the winter, assuming cold climate). It can appear more efficient, of course, if one only measures the dryer itself, but that wouldn't be apples-to-apples.
> Here's their top of the line current offering in the USA
$1800 is an eye-watering price. That'd buy me 3750 hours of 4kW [1] dryer usage, so buying it for long-term savings alone is hardly an obvious choice.
> clever uses of natural gas
Raising temperature by burning it seems like the least clever use of natural gas (or any combustible).
[1] I figure the least efficient resistive heating dryer is 5kW and that Miele is 1kW.
For my case, I figure it has in recent years started to give a return. I had to repair it (myself) with parts for $40 once. It has certainly been running for much more than 4000 hours.
Looking at the greater picture, the power mix here is about 50% nuclear and hydro, the rest from burning garbage in combined heat (heats the whole town) and power.
You can tell it's not using as much power as our previous dryer, the bathroom would get sauna hot if you closed the bathroom door and also the clothes would take longer to dry - with the Miele there isn't much difference with the door open or closed either in drying time or room temperature. It's also less wear and tear on the clothes. The clothes come out consistently "dry" instead of between "humid" and "extra crisp" with the old dryer.
Stepping away even further from the picture, I actually prefer hanging to dry (clothes don't wear out as fast and I actually enjoy the slight stiffness of textiles hung to dry, a childhood thing I guess) but my (soon to be ex-, thank God) wife swears by the dryer, so... a dryer it was. And I have to admit, it's damn useful at times.
You can buy a heat pump drier for less than $500 in Germany, with the premium brands' models around $700. Their energy consumption is about half that of a condensation drier. At German electricity prices (ca 25ct/kWh), it's not hard to see why heat pump driers have gained significant market share.
And for the record, the heat pump is used to dehumidify the processing air. The air is still heated using electricity. It just doesn't waste as much heat.
> Their energy consumption is about half that of a condensation drier.
Again, this is not necessarily a fair comparison, if what's being pumped actually costs something that can't be measured at the dryer's plug.
$500 would likely be worth it, even at $.12/kWh, but the market may not think so if they're not available for that price in places with cheap electricity (and/or cheap enough natural gas, which can be much cheaper, ranging between $.04/kWh and $.06/kWh, equivalent, on my last bill).
> the heat pump is used to dehumidify the processing air.
This seems a bit strange to me, but it makes sense, especially if there's recirculation going on.
> The air is still heated using electricity. It just doesn't waste as much heat.
This is pretty clear from the efficiency only being 2:1, which is much worse than what I'd expect from a heat pump being used for heating.
The only energy input is electricity. The heat pump is used to recover heat from the exhaust air. There is no other source of heat involved, so the comparison is entirely fair.
I'm a bit confused, since, initially, you mentioned dehumidifying.
However, I'm getting the impression that the heat pump in this case is entirely internal to the machine, which is not what I had in mind when mentioning heat pumps (thinking of their coefficient of performance of 3-4) [1]. Were I aware of these machines, I would have specified:
It's not as if modern dryers are using a heat pump with an outdoor source to raise the temperature of the clothing instead of burning gas or "burning" electricity with resistive heating.
That said, a 2x efficiency gain, by whatever method, is more than I expected, though still falling into what I would categorize as "not much room", especially if the gain comparison always assumes the oldest, least-efficient 5kW model only ever running at its highest setting. The other key assumption in all these comparisons is that all these dryers can finish the same sized load in the same amount of time, which can't possibly be true in the real world.
If my $40-to-repair machine already has some efficiency tweaks such that its worst-case is only 4kW, the $500 machine's worst-case is 2.5kW, but my actual behavior averages out to running them at 70% power, I'm saving barely over a kilowatt per hour, and I'm back up to 3500 hours to break-even at $.12/kWh electric rates. $1800-for-1kW is nearly 14k hours, or nearly 18 hours a week over fifteen years, and I don't do that much laundry.
[1] If this is so, it strikes me as odd to call it that, just as it would strike me as odd to call out a free-standing dehumidifier having a "heat pump", even though that's the crucial to the device functioning.
Electricity is far more expensive than gas. I would even factor the cost of not having a gas line when choosing to purchase a property. Commercial dryers, such as in hotels, are also gas. Actually, the only time I’ve seen electric dryers are in apartment buildings too old to have been hooked up with gas lines.
That's usually only if the gas is natural gas, and that's not available. Even then, "far more" can be misleading.
My experience in California is that it's on the order of 4x cheaper than using resistive heating in a residence (i.e. buying naively from the utility at retail rates).
My latest PG&E bill shows "procurement" costs (which I assume are the wholesale energy-only part of the bill [1]) of $.009-$.01/kWh [2], and, IIUC, wholesale electricity is about 4x that.
This is to say that an efficient enough electric heat pump (which I believe is plausible for whole-house heating, not high-temperature use cases like a dryer) could at least get close to gas in operating cost.
[1] only about 1/7th of the retail total, something which would likely surprise most consumers. This seems true for electricity, too, where, IIRC, the energy costs $.04/kWh, but PG&E charges upward of $.24/kWh at the highest residential "tier".
[2] converted from $/therm using 29.300111111111 kWh/therm
Why not just have the rule say what's actually meant, instead? If the desire is "no replies that are or might spark a controversy", then it's clearer for the rule to say that, instead of the vague, terse prohibition on complaints.
Better yet, go all the way and forbid replies entirely. That achieves the same stifling of conversation, in this one context where it's deemed "terrible", without the enforcement that can seem capricious and arbitrary (as you say yourself, "it's often not easy to tell the difference") and can needlessly shame an otherwise well-intentioned commenter.
Keeping it terse and relying on "spirit" is an excuse to maintain that aribtariness.