"Subway Stories," a digital tapestry woven from the myriad experiences of New York City subway riders, serves as an engaging and poignant compendium of the human drama that unfolds daily beneath the bustling metropolis. The website, a veritable archive of fleeting moments and enduring connections, meticulously catalogs a diverse array of encounters, ranging from the mundane to the extraordinary, all set against the backdrop of the city's intricate subterranean transit system. Through evocative narratives, both brief and elaborate, contributors paint a vivid picture of the subway's unique social ecosystem, capturing the ephemeral interactions that often go unnoticed amidst the frenetic pace of urban life.
These narratives, submitted by individuals from all walks of life, encapsulate the full spectrum of human emotion. From heartwarming tales of unexpected kindness and serendipitous connections to accounts of frustration, absurdity, and the occasional touch of urban grit, the collection offers a kaleidoscopic view of the shared human experience. Whether it be a chance encounter with a long-lost friend, a musician's impromptu performance that transforms a dreary commute, or a quiet observation of fellow passengers lost in their own worlds, each story contributes a unique thread to the rich fabric of the subway's narrative. The site thus functions not only as a repository of individual experiences but also as a testament to the collective tapestry of life that unfolds within the confines of New York City's iconic subway system, a space that serves as a microcosm of the city itself, reflecting its diversity, its energy, and its enduring capacity for both connection and isolation. Furthermore, the minimalist design of the website allows the narratives themselves to take center stage, ensuring that the focus remains squarely on the raw, unfiltered voices of the individuals who contribute their stories. This emphasis on authenticity enhances the emotional resonance of the project, creating a powerful and immersive experience for the reader who is invited to become a virtual fellow traveler, vicariously experiencing the joys, sorrows, and everyday oddities of life on the New York City subway.
The popular mobile game Luck Be a Landlord, a title that blends elements of slot machine mechanics with property management simulation, is facing the imminent threat of removal from the Google Play Store. This precarious situation has arisen due to the developer's staunch refusal to integrate changes demanded by Google pertaining to the game's depiction of simulated gambling. Google's policies, which aim to safeguard users from potential harm associated with gambling-like mechanics, specifically target the portrayal of simulated gambling as a path to financial gain. Luck Be a Landlord, with its core gameplay loop centered around spinning slots to acquire rent payments and upgrade properties, ostensibly falls within the purview of these regulations.
The developer, Dan, argues vehemently that Luck Be a Landlord is not, in fact, a gambling game. He contends that the game is fundamentally a strategy game, emphasizing the strategic choices players make regarding property acquisition and upgrades. While acknowledging the presence of randomized elements through the slot machine mechanic, he maintains that these elements are simply part of the game's overall design and do not constitute gambling in the traditional sense. Furthermore, he points out that the game does not offer real-world rewards or facilitate any form of monetary transactions related to the in-game mechanics, thereby further differentiating it from actual gambling.
Despite these arguments, Google appears resolute in its stance. The company has explicitly communicated to Dan that the game must be altered to comply with its policies, with suggested modifications including the removal of the slot machine visual metaphor or the introduction of alternative progression systems not reliant on simulated gambling mechanics. Dan, however, is resistant to these proposed changes, believing that they would fundamentally compromise the core gameplay loop and the very essence of Luck Be a Landlord. He perceives these demands as a form of censorship that stifles creative expression and undermines the artistic integrity of his game.
This impasse has created a tense standoff, with the ultimate fate of Luck Be a Landlord on the Google Play Store hanging in the balance. Dan faces a difficult choice: either acquiesce to Google's demands and potentially alter his game beyond recognition, or stand his ground on principle and risk the removal of his game from a major distribution platform, thereby significantly impacting its reach and accessibility to players. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between platform holders' content policies and developers' creative freedom, particularly in the increasingly complex landscape of mobile gaming.
The Hacker News comments section for the linked article discusses the potential removal of the game "Luck Be a Landlord" from the Google Play Store due to its inclusion of simulated gambling. The discussion revolves around the fairness and consistency of Google's enforcement policies, the nature of gambling in games, and the potential impact on the game's developer.
Several commenters express confusion and frustration with Google's seemingly arbitrary enforcement of its gambling policies. They point out other games on the platform that contain similar mechanics, such as loot boxes or gacha systems, and question why "Luck Be a Landlord" is being singled out. Some speculate about the specific criteria Google uses to determine what constitutes prohibited gambling and suggest that the game's explicit real-world money theme might be a contributing factor. Others argue that the core gameplay loop itself, revolving around random chance and resource management, doesn't necessarily equate to gambling.
A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the impact this ban could have on the game's developer. Commenters express sympathy for the solo developer, highlighting the potential financial and emotional toll of losing a significant distribution platform. The perceived lack of clear communication and support from Google is also criticized. Some suggest alternative distribution methods, such as itch.io or direct sales, and encourage the developer to appeal the decision.
A few commenters delve into the broader discussion surrounding the definition of gambling in games. They debate whether the presence of real-world currency themes, the ability to purchase in-game items, or the element of chance are sufficient to classify a game as gambling. Some argue that "Luck Be a Landlord" falls into a gray area, while others maintain that its core mechanics are distinct from traditional gambling activities.
The overall sentiment in the comments section leans towards support for the game developer and skepticism towards Google's enforcement policies. Many express concerns about the potential chilling effect this ban could have on independent game developers, particularly those experimenting with unconventional mechanics. The lack of transparency and seemingly arbitrary nature of the ban are recurring points of contention.
In a 2014 blog post titled "Literate Programming: Knuth is doing it wrong," author Akkartikone argues that Donald Knuth's concept of literate programming, while noble in its intention, fundamentally misunderstands the ideal workflow for programmers. Knuth's vision, as implemented in tools like WEB and CWEB, emphasizes writing code primarily for an audience of human readers, weaving it into a narrative document that explains the program's logic. This document is then processed by a tool to extract the actual compilable source code. Akkartikone contends that this "write for humans first, then extract for the machine" approach inverts the natural order of programming.
The author asserts that programming is an inherently iterative and exploratory process. Programmers often begin with vague ideas and refine them through experimentation, writing and rewriting code until it functions correctly. This process, Akkartikone posits, is best facilitated by tools that provide immediate feedback and allow rapid modification and testing. Knuth's literate programming tools, by imposing an additional layer of processing between writing code and executing it, impede this rapid iteration cycle. They encourage a more waterfall-like approach, where code is meticulously documented and finalized before being tested, which the author deems unsuitable for the dynamic nature of software development.
Akkartikone proposes an alternative approach they call "exploratory programming," where the focus is on a tight feedback loop between writing and running code. The author argues that the ideal programming environment should allow programmers to easily experiment with different code snippets, test them quickly, and refactor them fluidly. Documentation, in this paradigm, should be a secondary concern, emerging from the refined and functional code rather than preceding it. Instead of being interwoven with the code itself, documentation should be extracted from it, possibly using automated tools that analyze the code's structure and behavior.
The blog post further explores the concept of "noweb," a simpler literate programming tool that Akkartikone views as a step in the right direction. While still adhering to the "write for humans first" principle, noweb offers a less cumbersome syntax and a more streamlined workflow than WEB/CWEB. However, even noweb, according to Akkartikone, ultimately falls short of the ideal exploratory programming environment.
The author concludes by advocating for a shift in focus from "literate programming" to "literate codebases." Instead of aiming to produce beautifully documented code from the outset, the goal should be to create tools and processes that facilitate the extraction of meaningful documentation from existing, well-structured codebases. This, Akkartikone believes, will better serve the practical needs of programmers and contribute to the development of more maintainable and understandable software.
The Hacker News post discussing Akkartik's 2014 blog post, "Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong," has generated a significant number of comments. Several commenters engage with Akkartik's core argument, which posits that Knuth's vision of literate programming focused too much on producing a human-readable document and not enough on the code itself being the primary artifact.
One compelling line of discussion revolves around the practicality and perceived benefits of literate programming. Some commenters share anecdotal experiences of successfully using literate programming techniques, emphasizing the improved clarity and maintainability of their code. They argue that thinking of code as a narrative improves its structure and makes it easier to understand, particularly for complex projects. However, other commenters counter this by pointing out the added overhead and complexity involved in maintaining a separate document, especially in collaborative environments. Concerns are raised about the potential for the documentation to become out of sync with the code, negating its intended benefits. The discussion explores the trade-offs between the upfront investment in literate programming and its long-term payoff in terms of code quality.
Another thread of conversation delves into the tooling and workflows associated with literate programming. Commenters discuss various tools and approaches, ranging from simple text editors with custom scripts to dedicated literate programming environments. The challenges of integrating literate programming into existing development workflows are also acknowledged. Some commenters advocate for tools that allow for seamless transitions between the code and documentation, while others suggest that the choice of tools depends heavily on the specific project and programming language.
Furthermore, the comments explore alternative interpretations of literate programming and its potential applications beyond traditional software development. The idea of applying literate programming principles to other fields, such as data analysis or scientific research, is discussed. Some commenters suggest that the core principles of literate programming – clarity, narrative structure, and interwoven explanation – could be beneficial in any context where complex procedures need to be documented and communicated effectively.
Finally, several comments directly address Akkartik's criticisms of Knuth's approach. Some agree with Akkartik's assessment, arguing that the focus on generating beautiful documents can obscure the underlying code. Others defend Knuth's vision, emphasizing the importance of clear and accessible documentation for complex software systems. This discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the true essence of literate programming and its optimal implementation.
A meticulously crafted, real-time map of the London Underground and bus network, hosted on the domain traintimes.org.uk, has been regrettably deactivated following a trademark infringement complaint lodged by Transport for London (TfL). The map, a significant undertaking by the developer, distinguished itself by dynamically displaying the current locations of London Underground trains and buses, offering users an immediate and comprehensive visualization of the city's bustling transit system. This dynamic functionality was achieved by meticulously processing and visually representing publicly available data feeds provided by TfL.
The developer, who invested substantial effort into this project, expressed disappointment with TfL's decision, particularly highlighting the irony of the complaint arising from the use of data freely disseminated by TfL itself. The now-defunct map was highly regarded for its user-friendly interface and the clarity with which it presented complex real-time information. Its removal represents a loss for London commuters and anyone interested in observing the dynamic flow of the city’s public transportation network. While static maps of the London Underground are readily available, the distinctive real-time element of this particular map is now unavailable due to the enforced trademark restrictions. The developer's efforts to provide a valuable public service have, unfortunately, been curtailed by this legal intervention, leaving a void in the landscape of readily accessible, real-time London transit visualizations. The developer has indicated an intention to explore alternative avenues for presenting this type of information, but for the time being, the dynamic map remains inaccessible.
The Hacker News post "Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL trademark complaint" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42682876) sparked a discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters expressed frustration and disappointment with Transport for London (TfL)'s actions, viewing it as heavy-handed and detrimental to the public good.
A recurring sentiment was that TfL should embrace and collaborate with independent developers who create tools that enhance the public's experience with London's transit system. Some suggested that TfL's own digital offerings are often subpar, making independently developed alternatives even more valuable. The takedown of the live tube map was seen as a missed opportunity for TfL to partner with the developer and potentially integrate the useful features into their official platform.
Several comments focused on the trademark issue. Some questioned the validity of TfL's claim, arguing that using the roundel and station names might not constitute trademark infringement, especially when used for a non-commercial, public service. Others pointed out the potential chilling effect of such takedowns, discouraging other developers from creating similar tools.
The discussion also touched on the broader implications for open data and public transit information. Commenters argued that such data should be freely available to encourage innovation and the development of beneficial public services. The restrictive approach taken by TfL was contrasted with other transit systems that actively encourage the use of their data by third-party developers.
Some commenters offered practical suggestions, such as using a different style for the map to avoid trademark issues, or exploring legal options to challenge the takedown. There was also speculation about the specific reasons behind TfL's decision, with some suggesting that it might be related to revenue generation from their own official app or concerns about liability in case of inaccuracies in the independently developed map.
Overall, the comments reflect a strong sentiment against TfL's decision. The takedown was widely perceived as an overreach of trademark enforcement, hindering innovation and limiting the public's access to useful tools. The discussion highlighted the tension between protecting intellectual property and fostering a vibrant ecosystem of public transit applications.
Austrian cloud provider Anexia, in a significant undertaking spanning two years, has migrated 12,000 virtual machines (VMs) from VMware vSphere, a widely-used commercial virtualization platform, to its own internally developed platform based on Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM), an open-source virtualization technology integrated within the Linux kernel. This migration, affecting a substantial portion of Anexia's infrastructure, represents a strategic move away from proprietary software and towards a more open and potentially cost-effective solution.
The driving forces behind this transition were primarily financial. Anexia's CEO, Alexander Windbichler, cited escalating licensing costs associated with VMware as the primary motivator. Maintaining and upgrading VMware's software suite had become a substantial financial burden, impacting Anexia's operational expenses. By switching to KVM, Anexia anticipates significant savings in licensing fees, offering them more control over their budget and potentially allowing for more competitive pricing for their cloud services.
The migration process itself was a complex and phased operation. Anexia developed its own custom tooling and automation scripts to facilitate the transfer of the 12,000 VMs, which involved not just the VMs themselves but also the associated data and configurations. This custom approach was necessary due to the lack of existing tools capable of handling such a large-scale migration between these two specific platforms. The entire endeavor was planned meticulously, executed incrementally, and closely monitored to minimize disruption to Anexia's existing clientele.
While Anexia acknowledges that there were initial challenges in replicating specific features of the VMware ecosystem, they emphasize that their KVM-based platform now offers comparable functionality and performance. Furthermore, they highlight the increased flexibility and control afforded by using open-source technology, enabling them to tailor the platform precisely to their specific requirements and integrate it more seamlessly with their other systems. This increased control also extends to security aspects, as Anexia now has complete visibility and control over the entire virtualization stack. The company considers the successful completion of this migration a significant achievement, demonstrating their technical expertise and commitment to providing a robust and cost-effective cloud infrastructure.
The Hacker News comments section for the article "Euro-cloud provider Anexia moves 12,000 VMs off VMware to homebrew KVM platform" contains a variety of perspectives on the motivations and implications of Anexia's migration.
Several commenters focus on the cost savings as the primary driver. They point out that VMware's licensing fees can be substantial, and moving to an open-source solution like KVM can significantly reduce these expenses. Some express skepticism about the claimed 70% cost reduction, suggesting that the figure might not account for all associated costs like increased engineering effort. However, others argue that even with these additional costs, the long-term savings are likely substantial.
Another key discussion revolves around the complexity and risks of such a large-scale migration. Commenters acknowledge the significant technical undertaking involved in moving 12,000 VMs, and some question whether Anexia's "homebrew" approach is wise, suggesting potential issues with maintainability and support compared to using an established KVM distribution. Concerns are raised about the potential for downtime and data loss during the migration process. Conversely, others praise Anexia for their ambition and technical expertise, viewing the move as a bold and innovative decision.
A few comments highlight the potential benefits beyond cost savings. Some suggest that migrating to KVM gives Anexia more control and flexibility over their infrastructure, allowing them to tailor it to their specific needs and avoid vendor lock-in. This increased control is seen as particularly valuable for a cloud provider.
The topic of feature parity also emerges. Commenters discuss the potential challenges of replicating all of VMware's features on a KVM platform, especially advanced features used in enterprise environments. However, some argue that KVM has matured significantly and offers comparable functionality for many use cases.
Finally, some commenters express interest in the technical details of Anexia's migration process, asking about the specific tools and strategies used. They also inquire about the performance and stability of Anexia's KVM platform after the migration. While the original article doesn't provide these specifics, the discussion reflects a desire for more information about the practical aspects of such a complex undertaking. The lack of technical details provided by Anexia is also noted, with some speculation about why they chose not to disclose more.
Summary of Comments ( 7 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42684211
Hacker News users discuss the "Subway Stories" project, largely praising its nostalgic and artistic value. Some commenters share personal anecdotes of their own subway experiences, echoing the themes of chance encounters and shared humanity found on the site. Others analyze the technical aspects of the project, appreciating its minimalist design and questioning the choice of technology used. A few express skepticism about the authenticity of some submissions, while others lament the decline of similar community art projects in the internet age. The overall sentiment is positive, with many users finding the site to be a refreshing reminder of the unique human tapestry of the New York City subway system.
The Hacker News post titled "Subway Stories" linking to subwaystories.nyc/ has several comments discussing the website and its content.
Many users praised the site's design and user experience. One commenter described it as "clean and well-designed," while another appreciated the "smooth infinite scroll" and the way it "loads quickly." Several people specifically mentioned liking the minimalist aesthetic and the focus on the stories themselves. The site's mobile-friendliness was also highlighted as a positive aspect.
A few commenters discussed the technical aspects, with one asking about the platform or framework used to build it and expressing admiration for its performance. Another commenter, identifying as a web developer, offered specific technical suggestions for improving the mobile experience, such as addressing a minor scrolling issue.
The content itself generated discussion, with some users sharing their own subway anecdotes and others reflecting on the universal nature of such experiences. One commenter pointed out the similarity of the stories to those found on "Missed Connections" websites, highlighting the shared human experience of fleeting encounters and missed opportunities. Another commenter expressed enjoyment at the variety of stories, ranging from humorous to heartwarming to thought-provoking.
Some comments focused on the specific features of the site, with some suggesting additions like a "like" button or a way to filter stories by category or mood. One commenter suggested implementing a feature to prevent duplicate stories, while another proposed the ability to share stories directly on other social media platforms.
A thread developed discussing the moderation policies of the website, particularly in light of potentially offensive or harmful content. Commenters debated the balance between free speech and protecting users from negativity, with different viewpoints expressed regarding the level of moderation that would be appropriate.
Finally, several comments simply expressed appreciation for the website, calling it a "great idea," "refreshing," and a "welcome distraction." The overall sentiment towards the website was positive, with many users praising its simplicity, design, and the engaging nature of the user-submitted stories.