Court says Skype's name is too similar to Sky's - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32593735

<comment><USER2> There are 82 English dictionary words that contain the word "Sky." 63 of those words start with the word "Sky." Therefore by logical extension of this ruling, they have at minimum given Sky free trademarks on 82 additional words. That doesn't even include made up words like "Skype."

These types of decisions are going to massively limit the number of trademarkable words available for businesses to register in general. It wasn't even like Sky and Skype are directly competing with one another (VoIP/Chat/Video over Ip Vs. Satellite TV). Or that Skype was trying to feed off of Sky's reputation or brand.

This ruling is simply terrible. It is terrible within itself and sets an even worse precedent. The EU needs to pass additional laws clarifying this so that courts cannot reach these kind of conclusions.

<comment><USER3> Your understanding of trademark law is not correct. The crucial question is whether consumers will be confused by two different entities using the same or a similar trademark.

One of the first things you learn about trademarks is that two companies can have the same trademark if they are in different industries and the consumer is unlikely to confuse the two companies. For example, there is both an airline and a faucet manufacturer called "Delta". There is both an electronics company and an agricultural seed company called "Pioneer". However, Lindows had to change their name to Linspire because it was clearly in the same industry as Microsoft and the consumer could easily confuse it with the trademarked Windows software. Similarly, the social networking site Teachbook eventually relented after being sued by Facebook and changed their name to TeachQuest.

It definitely is _not_ the case that this ruling grants the company Sky free trademarks on every word in the dictionary that contains those three letters.

<comment><USER4> For Example:

Apple Computers - Apple Records (Beatles)

Macintosh Computers - Macintosh Stereo Equipment (Stereo Equipment is much more expensive than the technology company)

<comment><USER5> Actually, Apple/Apple is a really good example because Apple Records sued Apple Computers when the latter got into music.

<comment><USER4> Apple Computers had an agreement with Apple Records that it would not go into the Music Business and Apple Computers broke their promise and did not try to find a solution that would work for both parties.

Kind of like hoe there already was a Motorola iPhone in 2005 and iPhone was debut on 2007.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm still befuddled that you can trademark a name like Sky or Apple. I'm more befuddled that the EU courts would block registration of a trademark that is already widely known as a brand name and that the plaintiff in this case _isn 't even challenging_ as an infringement on their trademark.

<comment><USER7> It's because trademark is considerably more limited that most people believe.

You trademark is limited to specific markets you operate in, both type of market and geographic markets.

Apple Computers is okay because apple isn't descriptive about computer. You couldn't trademark apple in regards to the fruit.

Typically, there can be a Sky TV station and a Sky car rental. However, sometimes a company can become so popular that reusing their name will actually confuse customers, and it is no longer allowed.

For example, you would probably have a hard time using Apple now, even in an unrelated field.

<comment><USER8> 1224 Live hits for the exact word "Apple" at [http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/)

<comment><USER7> That sort of actual confusion analysis in the US is done at the court level. Just because you can get it past USPTO doesn't mean Apple won't be able to get you to stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's satire, right? Right? ❝the likelihood of the element 'Sky' being recognised within the word element 'Skype', for clouds are to be found 'in the sky' and thus may readily be associated with the word 'sky'.❞

Not really related, but it reminds me of another funny occurrence concerning trademarks: O2 (the phone company) sued Weinmann GmbH (a medical device company). Weinmann used the string O2 in a product that delivers oxygen to patients... ([http://sci.tech- archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-03/8371...](http://sci.tech- archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2005-03/8371.html))

Sometimes I question inhofar "common sense" prevails in these trademark-ruling courts.

</comment><comment> SG- Reminds me of this back in the 2003 where Microsoft went after a high school kid for having the domain mikerowesoft.com (his name being Mike Rowe):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft)

It ended alright for Mike Rowe in the end, but Microsoft only offered $10 originally and accused him of cybersquatting which was false. It was only after a bunch of press that he got some decent return.

</comment><comment><USER10> Skype was released in 2003 and personally I don't associate it with "sky". If Skype can't be trademark, then the trademark law is broken.

<comment><USER11> For context - Sky was founded in 1991 but then named Premiere and only rebranded to Sky in 2009.

<comment><USER12> Not sure where you're getting that from. BSkyB (British Sky Broadcasting) was formed in 1991 as part of a merger involving a pre existing Sky Television, and BSkyB and its successor Sky plc has used Sky (as a standalone word) in the name and logo of most of its TV channels (Sky Sports, Sky Movies, Sky News etc.) and other service offerings (Sky Talk, Sky Broadband, Sky Bet) continuously since then.

<comment><USER11> Maybe I should not just have skimmed the article. The rest was same logo, same company and limited knowledge of the history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Seems like Sky has a thing for Microsoft - first they were forced to rename SkyDrive to OneDrive and now this.

<comment> k-mcgrady Or does Microsoft have a thing for Sky? I don't see in this case how their could be any confusion considering how long Skype has been around and how well known it is but in the SkyDrive case I can see how that makes sense considering Sky is an ISP and it is possible they could have a product named SkyDrive.

<comment><USER14> Or neither, since the initial challenge of Skype occurred before Microsoft even bought the company.

Sky just seems to love challenging everything similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Where is the Late Peter Cook when you need him

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U)

For background there was a court case back in the 70's (the leader of a political party was accused of arranging a contract killing on his gay lover) a high profile court case with an outrageously biased judge.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is what happens when you name your company something like "Sky" or "Paper"

<comment><USER17> Apparently you win. It's the later derivatives that lose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow, they literally "own the sky".

<comment><USER19> Not literally; otherwise, they could charge you to breathe in the EU. They own the trademark and its association with the sky.

<comment><USER18> Ok,ok but "own the term sky" doesn't sound as nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Since Skype is by far the more popular (and important) service, I suppose "Sky" should change their name ;-)

[http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience- Insight/dashboard.aspx](http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience- Insight/dashboard.aspx)

<comment><USER12> Depends how you define important; Sky's $18bn market cap is testament to their customers spending an awful lot more money on satellite television and telephone landlines than on VOIP calls.

Neither party will change their name in the near future, and the lawyers from both companies that have made a lot of money fighting each other will be equally keen to make more money stomping on anyone with the temerity to start an EU-based VOIP service with a name like SkyPeer or SkyBe

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> First SkyDrive, now Skype? What is this company's deal with attacking Microsoft and others over a very very generic word?

For what it's worth, Sky is only 60% of Skype, and Skype has 2 more letters.

<comment><USER22> Also MS "Metro" UI nowadays named "Modern UI": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_UI#Name_change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_UI#Name_change)

Metro Group, Germany's largest retailer, had something against it ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AG)). Yet, it's an abbreviation of "metropolitan" and is used for many other things: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro)

<comment><USER23> Microsoft should have never backed down on this one.

<comment><USER24> Metro AG owns Media Markt and Saturn[1], both sell electronics, including computers. Judging by their stores, most of these computers are PCs (although they do sell Apple computers as well).

Media Markt, is Europe's largest retailer of consumer electronics[2].

Saturn is one of the big retailers of consumer electronics in Germany, and have stores in some other European countries[3].

So perhaps Microsoft could have won that one, but at what cost? Pissing off one of their biggest retailers? I don't know for sure, but it seems very likely that Microsoft wouldn't want to do that and made the decision to back off instead.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_AG)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Markt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Markt)

[3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(store)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_\(store\))

<comment><USER23> The thing is Microsoft's Metro isn't even a product, it's just a name for a technology. Why should this company even care. The whole is ridiculous and that's why Microsoft should not have backed down on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are they also going to go after the two dozen or so airlines that have 'Sky' in their name...?

</comment><comment><USER26> skype well known world wide. sky known only in UK. I am from europe, and only remember sky exist when MS decide change skydrive to onedrive, or when skype not allowed get trademark.

</comment><comment><USER27> It is like saying "Hat" is too similar to "Hate".

</comment><comment> gr8b8m8-88 TIL in Europe you are literally not allowed to pe under the sky.

</comment><comment><USER28> More nonsense protectionism from EU power brokers.

<comment><USER29> Not EU, but UK protectionism, they do a lot different than guys on the mainland. Skype was created in EU (ok almost, created in Estonia few months before it joined EU).

<comment><USER30> _Not EU, but UK protectionism_

From TFA: "General Court of the European Union", and got there because the ruling was the same at the European Union's Office for Harmonisation of Internal Markets.</comment></comment></comment>


Hey Adobe:Cross compile Objective C to run on Flash Player  - <AUTHOR> http://www.arpitonline.com/blog/2010/04/10/alright-adobe-heres-what-you-do-cross-compile-objective-c-to-run-on-the-flash-player/

<comment><USER2> This would require some major development time and give devs another reason to work on the iPhone. IMO, they would be better off devoting the time in solidifying Flash 10.1 mobile and compatibility across non-iPhone devices.

</comment><comment><USER3> Adobe's target audience is people who _don't_ want to program in Objective C. By writing a mega .lib to allow cross-compilation, you're not reaching those customers. I really think there are not that many iPhone developers who want to port their code automatically to Flash.

Having worked with both Flash and Cocoa/Objective C, I believe this idea would be near impossible to execute - the platforms are so dissimilar. I start to get a headache just thinking how you would translate Cocoa to ActionScript 3/The Stage.

<comment><AUTHOR> They have already done a bit of work in this department with the whole Alchemy project: <http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/alchemy/>

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Even though it is just translation of pure server-oriented code, it is a nice start. Of course, I can make the argument that if they can write a program that translates one platform to another - they should go after the holy grail of game development - write once, perform spectacularly anywhere - and make hundreds of millions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "You need the Flash IDE to cross compile to ActionScript bytecode so your market is secured again."

No, no you don't. Adobe and many others have free AS compilers. Not to mention that this would require implementing a ton of APIs. It could work, but there's no way Adobe would go for this, or be able to keep up with Apple's development.

Edit: Missed the 'cross' part of the original statement. However, ignoring the first two sentences of my comment, the rest still stands.

</comment><comment><USER5> Compatability layers specifically forbidden...

<comment><AUTHOR> But it wont be a compatibility layer, it would be no different than using a third party Objective C library. Apple cant really mandate all code for an app be written by the developer team itself. Basically its all Objective C code and some Adobe tool cross compiles it to bytecode that the Flash Player can play

<comment><USER6> It still has to be "originally written" in x.

<comment><USER7> No...you originally write in Objective-C, using an Objective-C framework designed to make cross-compiling to Flash bytecode easier. I think Apple would be a-ok with its competing platforms getting filled with ported apps. You'll still need to program in Objective-C though, and it's hard to see what advantage Adobe's existing apps would bring to Objective-C development.

<comment><USER8> It's pretty simple for Apple to get around. They can wait until someone does something like this, and then go update their agreement to say cross-platform ui toolkits are not allowed to be used.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Douglas Crockford: Monads and Gonads [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0EF0VTs9Dc

<comment><AUTHOR> I found the bit on "Context Coloring" very interesting (around 15:00). I want my editor to do that!</comment>


Java Makes Programmers Want to Do Absolutely Anything Else with Their Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/02/21/java-makes-programmers-want-to-do-absolutely-anything-else-with-their-time/ <comment><USER2> This is a cut and paste from Quora (as a Forbes contributor)

[http://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-software-engineers-not- like...](http://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-software-engineers-not-like-Java)

It contains four pages from two contributors, the first from our own michaelochurch. So the functional bent and OO bashing is no surprise.

</comment><comment><USER3> TL;DR Functional programming evangelist bashes object oriented languages.

</comment><comment><USER4> > it still isn't competitive with C or C++ and, with a little love, Haskell > and OCaml can or will eclipse it in that domain

Oh please. It has displaced C and C++ for the vast majority of programming. And call me when people other than a few rabid fans and academics are actually using Haskell and OCaml for real software development.

<comment><USER5> I think that quote was about performance. Full context:

> While it performs pretty well nowadays, it still isn't competitive with C or > C++ and, with a little love, Haskell and OCaml can or will eclipse it in > that domain.

But don't underestimate C and C++. They're still widely used; by some measures, moreso than Java.

<comment><USER6> I don't love java. Not at all. All my out of work coding is in other languages - primarily clojure since I can make use of the java I write at work.

However, my company has a risk management system that was written in C++. It's a system of large matrix operations that uses a lot of CPU and memory. Being one of the few neck beards at my company who had ever written C++, I was tasked with translating it to java. In order to guarantee correctness, I slavishly maintained the algorithms, classes, etc. This allowed me to compare intermediate results at each step, but obviously didn't allow for any improvements I might otherwise have done. I was hoping for a runtime differential of 2x over the C++ version which would have been adequate for our needs. I paid no attention to runtime performance, though, since correctness was the prime goal - we're talking about real money in the balance. Once I was satisfied with the numbers, I ran some performance tests. I was shocked to find the jave version ran 40% faster than the C++ version. And this was prior to performance enhancements that I was able to put into the java version added largely by the huge ecosystem that has built up around java/JVM programming.

So, yes, I don't like java, but it's hard not to respect it. Obviously, one example doesn't end the debate about performance, but I'll admit to having been shocked at this result.

<comment><USER7> There really isn't much difference when comparing code that does the same thing in roughly the same way. As you noticed, you can even get some performance freebies in managed world for a variety of reasons. However, that's not the point. You can tune your C or C++ to a much higher degree than you can managed code, and that's where they win.

<comment><USER8> This has been covered ad naueseum. There are plenty of situations where both the C/C++ and Java sides of the fence will beat each other in benchmarks. Especially if you have average developers programming both platforms.

<comment><USER7> Yes, that "average developers" part is the important bit. Not sure what your point is here. The parent was talking about their experience in porting C++ code to Java, noting a performance improvement. In terms of performance, you don't use a language like C++ because it is going to be faster than everything else out there in all cases, you use it because you can eek out more performance than you can in using a language such as Java.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Try to tell that to Apache.

Apache GitHub project page: [https://github.com/apache](https://github.com/apache)

</comment><comment><USER10> JSPs and Tomcat and XML vs Python or PHP and Apache and JSON?

I know which I find wayyyy less painful.</comment>


Angular vs. React – the DEAL BREAKER - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/angular-vs-react-the-deal-breaker-7d76c04496bc#.tjtoleaub <comment><USER2> This seems like yet another extremely cursory comparison. Many of the complaints against Angular have almost no meaning, to suggest whoever wrote this simply knows more about the other things they wrote about than Angular.

For example: Types are extremely useful if you have a substantial team building a substantial project. TypeScript is a strength of angular, not a weakness. It does not require you to have types for third-party libraries, with a couple of lines of code you can get untyped access to any third-party library. But you will want to types because they make for a better and more scalable development experience.

There are good reasons to prefer different types of libraries for different uses, but they are deeper than the brief sentences in this article can cover.</comment>


New Augmented Reality HUD Is a Fighter Jet Display for Your Car - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/09/pioneer-navgate/ <comment><USER2> I think there's huge potential in this kind of technology as an extension of normal driver vision, particularly combined with the kinds of specialised cameras we're starting to see fitted to premium vehicles now (night vision, radar) and the image recognition tech to go with them (lane discipline warnings, parking assistance, hazards approaching the driving line ahead).

Just yesterday, there was a 130 vehicle crash here in the UK (sadly, that number was not a typo) after thick, low fog moved in over a bridge that is normally a major high-speed route. If everyone's vehicle had been fitted with technology that detected reduced traction due to the greasy road surface, how close vehicles in front really were and how abruptly they were slowing down even if fog was obscuring them, and how fast each driver's own vehicle was really going, and if a HUD had then flashed up the essential information and highlighted the insufficient stopping distances drivers were leaving, there might have been many fewer injuries, much less damage, and much less disruption treating the injured and recovering disabled vehicles. While yesterday's weather conditions were unusually severe for the UK, similar arguments would apply all the time at night for anyone driving on high speed or bendy out-of-town roads.

On the other hand, was I the only person who watched that video and got completely distracted by the zooming route map towards the end? If I were driving for real, I think it would be very difficult to concentrate properly on the road ahead with all of that activity going on. Avoiding information overload and maintaining driver concentration seem like serious concerns for this kind of system, but as a UI guy it looks like an awesome project to work on.

<comment><USER3> I think there's too much going on in that HUD for the average driver to parse. I'm also unconvinced by the choice of elevation perspective for the route guidance - even though the display is above the road, it feels less confusing to have a "birds-eye" perspective on the route guidance.

As the Sheppey pile-up demonstrates, there's a lot of people who simply suck at driving - specifically maintaining sufficient braking distance and NOT cutting into someone else's braking distance when changing lanes (in poor conditions that space is for ME to stop in, not for YOU to slide into). As it is, I'm conscious that I need to be aware of the car behind as well as the car in front. The only way it'll work is if the car brakes for you, and then everyone has to have that technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think that HUDs in cars are a step backwards.

For my driving I like to be able to see clearly through the windscreen at all the things that are going on around me. For that reason I keep the windscreen clean and I don't like having any windscreen mounted things (like a cellphone or GPS).

I'm much happier in one of two modes: looking through the glass at things around me (road, cars, people, bikes, etc.) and looking at an instrument for data (speedometer, GPS, fuel, etc.)

I can glance at my GPS and know what's going on when I need to. Similarly, if I need a quick speed check. I really don't want these things in my field of vision when looking through the window. I think a HUD with any sort of motion of changing data would be incredibly distracting.

<comment><USER2> I expressed similar concerns, but I think if some clever optics could overlay data "in place" onto the normal windscreen image there could be many practical applications. You could replace intrusive SatNav arrows with highlighting the actual driving line required as you look out at the road ahead. You could scan with a night vision camera and outline animals or other hazards in the road ahead that aren't yet within range of headlights. Maybe the vehicle ahead could be outlined in red and the distance to it displayed, if your car detected that under current driving conditions you were in danger of not being able to stop quickly enough should anything happen; as I mentioned in my other post, a similar technique would be very relevant if you couldn't actually see the next vehicle in front due to adverse weather but your on-board radar could pick it up.

<comment><USER5> _" You could replace intrusive SatNav arrows with highlighting the actual driving line required as you look out at the road ahead"_

There's a company already doing this, the Pioneer HUD is kind of a rip of their concept:

[http://mvs.net/index.html](http://mvs.net/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> High end BMW's have had something like this as an option (very expensive) for a while now. It's done in a much more elegant way than here in the article posted, the virtual distance the display is at is at roughly the same distance as the stuff in front of your car where your eyes are focused so there is no need to re-focus all the time.

There are some pretty tricky optics involved in getting a light path of the right focal length in the room just under the windshield and the first part of the bonnet so the image appears at the right distance.

<comment><USER3> £800 option on the F30 in the UK - doesn't seem that much on a £43K 330d...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like this would introduce the same problems as captions do in movies: you spend the whole time staring at the captions/hud instead of the movie/outside. Except with movies, you just miss out on the cinematography, whereas with this, you get in an accident.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have found myself holding my cell phone up in front of me while driving in order to read text messages. I had someone honk at me in that case, but I am sure that was safer than looking down and hiding the phone in my lap or something, because I was able to see the road behind the phone at the same time (not very well though and of course it was dangerous anyway).

I think a HUD may become standard in most cars within a few years because its just much safer to have information or controls projected in your field of view than to have to look down or away from the road. And so many people have long commutes with emails or instant messages coming in that they would like to be able to monitor without taking their eyes off of the road. Even if you are changing your focus or attention slightly, the time to refocus on objects that are still in your field of vision or only a few degrees away is much less than what might be required to switch away from viewing a phone in your hand.

<comment><USER2> _And so many people have long commutes with emails or instant messages coming in that they would like to be able to monitor without taking their eyes off of the road._

Then perhaps they should consider taking public transportation? These kinds of HUD technologies could do a lot to make important driving information more easily accessible, but given the overwhelming evidence that trying to concentrate on remote communication while driving dramatically increases the risk of and damage caused by having an accident, it's hard to believe that shoving all that information between the driver's eyes and the road could ever make that kind of activity acceptably safe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _" Most HUDs fail for one reason"_

And that reason is: most people, for most trips, just don't need it. [1]

Driving a passenger car is simple and boring. That's why people distract themselves. That's why they go on mental auto-pilot and will readily admit they weren't consciously aware of how they got from one place to another.

Even if and when that data is front and center, it gets tuned out with everything else.

[1] Turn by turn is great, but it's explicitly for the minority of cases. (business travelers, outliers, notwithstanding)

</comment><comment><USER10> I've had this idea for a while. But why stop at turn by turn stuff? Why not put upcoming traffic there, your text messages, the controls for the radio and air-conditioning. Heck get rid of the dashboard all together. Just put some buttons on the steering wheel and display everything on the HUD. I've been in a car that drove up on the sidewalk because the driver was fiddling with the radio. This seems much safer to me.

</comment><comment><USER11> > _Pioneer doesn't identify the phones supported by NavGate, but it's > connected via USB so order an extra long cable now. ... sales have only been > announced for Europe for £599_

 _What_? That's _crazy_. Mini projectors can be bought for about $200, and this could easily run a slow display over bluetooth or literally anything over wifi (then it's just a video stream to a mini projector with a special lens and a piece of glass).

Good idea, bad idea, I wouldn't even consider this with that kind of price tag.

<comment><USER12> If you want a projector, just buy a projector. This is a completely different product. Also, wifi is very noisy and crowded. I wouldn't depend on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> turn by turn navigation works ok-ish in cities, but is quite rubbish in the country side, specially in region where the company owning the map data doesn't care much about streamed update. I have had CS experience for one of the two mentioned by pioneer as supported, and although they had recent changes, I seriously doubt the end user experience will be any nicer in the near future. I trust Google more than the product I provided support for not so long ago. Still nice to see someone trying to tackle the HUD in cars.</comment>


Classic examples of innovation - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090401/this-is-how-its-done.html

<comment><AUTHOR> "4. Whistle blow while you work..."

I believe that the root of all innovation is allowing the people to speak. This is the end user, but even more importantly the employees. The reason that I believe this to be the case is because there are countless studies which prove that employees who have the ability to contribute will take an ownership stake in the company, combine this with a small equity position, and your innovation will indeed become a reality!

</comment><comment><USER2> I love #6, about hourly goals. Almost every successful businessperson I've known was obsessed with their dashboard, whatever that was. Quarterly, monthly, and weekly were no good, it's already too late to do anything about it. Daily is good. Hourly is better. You always have your hand on the throttle of the business.

They understand that big successes don't suddenly happen. They are the result of many small successes that we make happen all day long.</comment>


'I want to join the NSA. What do you think of that?' by Cory Doctorow - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/11/west-point-cybersecurity-nsa-privacy-edward-snowden <comment><USER2> Actually, joining the NSA and pulling another Snowden would be great. In fact, if a handful of people did this it could get the ball rolling and encourage more people to speak up who have long felt uncomfortable, but aren't willing to risk the consequences.

I think the real danger is that the student would join with great intentions and then lose the nerve to stand up for his beliefs.

<comment><USER3> Jacob Appelbaum has actually recommended this strategy in the last ~year. Not just the NSA, but also the other members of FVEY and places like Ramstein Air Base[1].

It's an incredibly dangerous role to play, so I understand if someone decides against pulling another Snowden. I only hope the have the moral fortitude to at least quit if they feel they cannot take the the whistleblower risk.

Also, for anybody inside that wants help, remember that Drake and Schneier endorse Intelexit[2].

[1] [https://theintercept.com/2015/04/17/ramstein/](https://theintercept.com/2015/04/17/ramstein/)

[2] [https://www.intelexit.org/](https://www.intelexit.org/)</comment></comment>


The real reason android is winning in volume. 30% goes to the carrier. - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/mf_android/all/1? <comment><USER2> Title should be changed to: The Android Explosion: How Google's Freewheeling Ecosytem Threatens the iPhone

</comment><comment><USER3> >But make no mistake: As is often the case in technology, only one platform will prevail.

I don't buy this - sure there are only one OS for pcs, but there are many different browser.

The end game is fun to speculate about but before we can do that we need to know if the phone is a platform (like the OS) where the main feature is if it can run the app you want or if its a browser where you can access the information with either.

A decade ago this would have been easy but today the pull of the internet is so strong that I don't think it is a given that one platform is able to cut the other of.

If it takes 5 years before the two platforms face each other of the pull is only going to be that much stronger.</comment>


Uber Rolls Out Self-Driving Cars in San Francisco Without DMV Approval - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-14/uber-rolls-out-self-driving-cars-in-san-francisco-without-dmv-approval <comment><USER2> I don't get it I park in the wrong spot I get a ticket. These guys drive down the road without a driver and oh well...I remember when the guys that setup an illegal gambling website couldn't step foot in the US because they would go to jail.</comment>


Watching America: Stories about the US from non-US sources - <AUTHOR> http://watchingamerica.com/News/

<comment><USER2> The image of America in my country(Bulgaria) is pretty bad. Most of us hate you, mainly for two reasons, the first is because of our own ass-licking politicians, who are basically ready to attack China is the US tells them to. And the second main reason is because most of us in Bulgaria are just loudmouth haters and we don't like anybody.

And yeah, I've met with a few Americans in person, two of them are teachers from the peace corps(pretty decent people, be the way, i defeated one of them on scrabble) and the others were some religious nut-bags, trying to convince me to accept Jesus, I told them that most Bulgarians accepted Jesus in 864, and then told them to go screw them selfs. The conversation was in Bulgarian, so i assumed that these people were trained and suspected that who ever trained them and sent them here, was stinking rich, so i decided not to trust them, even thou they looked nice and friendly.

<comment><AUTHOR> So you hate us because your politicians are idiots and you're a bunch of malcontents?

I mean, I'm not trying to name-call, just repeat what I heard.

I've always liked Bulgaria. Isn't that over next to Cuba or something in Africa? (wink)

Or for the slow of reasoning, if you're going to hate us, hate us for not remembering who you are or what your history is. Most Americans probably couldn't locate the continents on a globe, much less identify Eurasian countries.

<comment><USER3> You may have missed the parent's winning mix of ironic self-awareness and black Slavic bile.

<comment><AUTHOR> yep. Screwed the pooch on that one.

Humor is a tough thing to do online. There's always some idiot who completely misses the joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What a disaster of a website design. N

eat idea though, I think if more American's knew what was being said about them they would adjust their actions, or least attempt to counter with some good PR.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an awful design, but a good idea, I think.

I've been watching for a while. It's always the same -- yes we are starving here, but look at those Americans! Yes we have no freedoms here, but those damn Americans are doing it again!

You'd think it would wear thin on local readers, but I imagine most local readers have no other sources of information. It would be good to see a reverse version of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is absolutely fascinating. It has timely translations into (mostly) idiomatic English, with links to primary sources and the home pages of hundreds of international news sources.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You can read foreign-language newspaper commentary when the subject has to do with America.

Very interesting! America has now become a standard prop for not dealing with all sorts of local and national issues.</comment>


Twitter Is Working on a Way to Retrieve Your Old Tweets - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/twitter-is-working-on-a-way-to-retrieve-your-old-tweets/

<comment><USER2> Off hand, does anyone know what the current rate limit is for making searches through the API? A quick Google search didn't find an answer, although it's late here, and perhaps my Google-fu is on the blink.

 _Added in edit: I may have found it - does 150 calls/hr seem right?_

<comment><USER3> The Search API's limits are more fluid than the REST API. It generally allows for about 1 query per second.</comment></comment>


In defense of corn, the world's most important food crop (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html <comment><USER2> This is ignoring the real issue which is animal agriculture. If we ate the corn ourselves instead of feeding it to cows, we'd be using much less land, be healthier and of course, end the worst crime in history.

I highly recommend watching the documentary 'Cowspiracy'.</comment>


Brotli compression for the web - <AUTHOR> http://calendar.perfplanet.com/2015/new-years-diet-brotli-compression/ <comment><USER2> Brotli is an awesome codec, but in a lot of my tests it was not really compelling versus LZHAM in terms of compression speed or compression ratio. In some test cases it edges it out on speed or ratio, but on others it's a tie if not worse. Sadly, in my testing I also hit at least one crash bug in the Brotli compressor, which makes it feel like an immature codec. On the bright side, the bug was fixed extremely quickly. I hope integration in browsers will help push the codec forward and encourage the developers of other codecs to try harder so that we get a really heated competition :-)

<comment><USER3> > " it was not really compelling versus LZHAM "

For those of us building things on the web, things supported by browsers are far more compelling than those that are not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The support is really only on firefox: [http://caniuse.com/#search=brotli](http://caniuse.com/#search=brotli)

Chromium is still milling on this: [https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=452335](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=452335)

But there seems to be some progress: [https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+log/lkcr...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+log/lkcr/third_party/brotli)

<comment><USER5> That's fine. It's quite possible they could sort out Chrome and most of the world's browsers would have the feature by the end of the year. We live in exciting times :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> More detailed comparison: [https://www.gstatic.com/b/brotlidocs/brotli-2015-09-22.pdf](https://www.gstatic.com/b/brotlidocs/brotli-2015-09-22.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Thank you. That is loads more informative than the linked blog post, which does not even bother to compare to LZMA.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't bother to compare LZMA because no major browser is planning to add LZMA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm hoping for a compression algorithm which allows for separated codebooks, so e.g. one can compactly send updates when previous versions have already been transferred.

<comment><USER9> Chrome has something like this called SDCH, but it hasn't seen a ton of adoption outside Google:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDCH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDCH)

[https://engineering.linkedin.com/shared-dictionary- compressi...](https://engineering.linkedin.com/shared-dictionary-compression- http-linkedin)

[https://aprescott.com/posts/sdch](https://aprescott.com/posts/sdch)

Guessing part of the hurdle is that you can't simply drop it in like gzip; you have to generate a dictionary and serve it and refresh it now and then (the LinkedIn post explains). And a CDN can't just cache "the SDCH'd version" of a resource; ideally it'd cache one version for each recently used dict.

The other, slightly happier "problem," is that other tuning can make the additional gains from SDCH less dramatic. I looked, and the Google homepage has a blob of JS that's 40KB gzip+sdch'd--but it's ~100KB gzip -9'd, and probably costs me 0KB most of the time because it's cacheable and its Last- Modified is about a month ago.

CloudFlare's Railgun proxy does use delta coding to good effect, though in a much different context (origin server to edge location).

I can imagine other variations, like priming Brotli's (de)compressor's history buffer with the first bytes of the old version of a cacheable resource in an If-None-Match request, if both sides have the old version handy and advertise the encoding. Sounds like what you're saying. Like SDCH, that still isn't drop-in; the server has to remember old versions of things. And it only applies to cached resources.

Anyhow, interesting space.

<comment><USER9> > priming Brotli's (de)compressor's history buffer with...the old version...if > both sides...advertise the encoding

Too late to edit, but I mean a separate Accept-Encoding value for the diff- like usage (brdiff or whatever), not piggy-backing on the value already being added for Brotli. Clearly if you're messing with the history buffer it's no longer Brotli-as-we-know-it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Previous discussion from 3 months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10257305](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10257305)

</comment><comment><USER11> You can make your own tests and your data with TurboBench: [https://github.com/powturbo/TurboBench](https://github.com/powturbo/TurboBench)

</comment><comment><USER5> Anyone know if there's something planned for haproxy?

</comment><comment><USER12> I still don't understand why it's 'br' in the header and not 'brotli'

<comment><USER13> Maybe because the actual name is "Brötli" and "Zöplfi" coming from the Swiss German naming of small breads. Umlauts are usually converted like so: "ö" to "oe" but not always. So there may be confusion as to if it's "brotli" or "broetli".

Then again, this is just some wild speculation. :)

<comment><USER14> Actually, they decided the header would be .bro

During a lot of overplayed drama it was decided to rename it to .br instead.

<comment><USER15> What overplayed drama? The discussion happened on Firefox bug 366559, 'bro' was raised in comment 146 and 'br' was proposed/"accepted" by 152. There was of course a lot of complaints/trolling after the decision was made, but the actual rename happened in a small number of comments over the course of a few hours.

[146]: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559#c146](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559#c146) [152]: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559#c152](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366559#c152)

<comment><USER14> Indeed, although I said it this way to avoid starting another debate – obviously, that failed.

<comment><USER16> Look, talking about "a lot of overplayed drama" thus introducing your opinion that "a lot of overplayed drama" had taken place is surely NOT the right way to avoid starting another debate - but I'm inclined to believe you already know that...

<comment><USER14> Overplayed drama because I consider the whole situation to be ridiculous. It does not matter if it's bro, br, brötli or whatever.

The whole drama around it, and "feminism gone too far" is ridiculous, and, worst of all, everyone claims the other side did far worse stuff than what actually happened.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Transformation of Condé Nast - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/155286/conde-nast-biography-book-review <comment><USER2> I have stopped reading Wired when they've decided to block new visitors that use ad blockers, essentially telling them to expose themselves to a proven malware distribution channel. They have relented since to a more sensible paywall with a handful of free articles every month, but they've likely lost a bunch of readers and mind share because of that initial decision.

[https://www.wired.com/how-wired-is-going-to-handle-ad- blocki...](https://www.wired.com/how-wired-is-going-to-handle-ad-blocking/)

<comment><USER3> They are optimizing for profit. Your mind share is not mind share they care about because the chance of converting you into a paying customer is close to nil. You might as well not exist to them.

These practices are all about extracting more money from potential customers.

<comment><USER4> I know they need money to continue publishing stories, but I don't feel like getting nickeled an dimed by every publication wanting a subscription.

At the same time, quality journalism costs money.

<comment><USER5> Well, that's how people used to get magazines and newspapers for the most part. They bought an individual subscription.

That said, it's hard to see many people paying for a lot of individual subscriptions outside of mostly global brands like The Economist. On the other hand, we haven't seen aggregation that works from both the perspective of readers and publishers.

<comment><USER6> The problem being nobody is going to sub £5/mo for everything they want to read that's an insane amount of money. But mentally signing up for £5/mo or £0.05/mo is the same hurdle it seems, putting any flow like that drops users.

My youtube alone would be ~£330/mo if everyone did 1 video.

<comment><USER5> >nobody is going to sub £5/mo

The Economist runs more than that. So does The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. And people used to routinely have many magazine subscriptions that were at least $1/month.

I agree expectations have changed for many people. But spending what you do on Spotify for all you can eat magazine subscriptions is actually an unsustainably low number.

<comment><USER6> My point was everyone can't do that. It's not a solution, it just happens to be those producers are of a size to make that choice and get some value.

The dude making a hydro turbine I watch for 4 hours, he's not getting that. I'm not going to patreon for that, it sucks but I'm honest. I patreon someone building a whole boat, seems cheap I'd do the same for just that.

We all hate advertising but really what does the alternative look like. Consciously donating just isn't going to cut it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Vintage Computing for Trusted Radiation Measurements - <AUTHOR> http://nuclearfutures.princeton.edu/vintageverification/ <comment><USER2> The premise appears to be that using an old, simple, easy-to-verify cpu/architecture makes it harder to embed malware in the nuclear-disarmament- verification code that hostile (or at least somewhat untrusting) states would both need to trust.

> ... as the performance of the inspection system is limited, and data > acquisition and processing has to be designed and highly optimized > accordingly.

I wonder if any potential exploit/workaround/disarmament-dodging would then just move to a different layer.

This also reminds me of the most recent Underhanded C contest at [http://www.underhanded-c.org/_page_id_5.html](http://www.underhanded-c.org/_page_id_5.html)</comment>


Ebay Unacquires StumbleUpon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/13/ebay-unacquires-stumbleupon/ <comment><USER3> The problem with sites like Digg, Stumbleupon, and now Twitter is that for one second they are super hot and useful, until online marketers find out about them at some conference and destroy them.

<comment><USER4> How true that is, and of course that leaves the giant unsolved problem - <USER2> to keep a site vibrant and interesting once the marketers and SEO types discover it. This site seems to be trying new things but a visit to the new section suggests it's not invulnerable. Presumably killing them all isn't a viable solution, so either everyone periodically moves on to the next new hot site, or we learn to live with them (and them with us).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure what eBay was planning on doing with StumbleUpon in the first place. Same with Skype - it's been three years seemingly without any real integration of the services.

I recall talk about a grand vision of users calling one-another to negotiate deals and terms, but it looks like eBay has never really pulled the trigger. Perhaps they're trying to stay in a league with Google and Amazon, who have shown significant versatility in their service offerings - but eBay has definitely fallen flat if that was their intention.

I wouldn't be surprised to see eBay spin off Skype eventually too in favor of a leaner organization.

<comment><USER6> Maybe their plan wasn't so much integration as it was diversification.

<comment><USER7> The plan was to mask a deceleration in growth of the main eBay platform while they bought time to fix it. Whoops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think I've ever met anyone under 40 who uses StumbleUpon. I learned about it from my dad.

<comment><USER9> I use it daily, and have for quite a while (26). As a publisher, I've received more traffic from SU than any other source.

Still, I've never felt compelled to run a paid campaign, and perhaps that's the problem.

<comment><USER10> I disagree. I think that stumbleupon (assuming long term popularity) has the potential to be a great place to advertise but... it's not that simple.

Google adwords is pretty straightforward. But it still took advertisers years to figure out how to use it properly. We basically build sites & even site building tools & other tools, with the ultimate goal of making Adwords work well. The fact that there are millions of consultants & employees & blog posts & ebooks that know how to make adwords pay is a big part of why adwords works.

It works for a lot of things. But it also doesn't work for a lot of things. It's terrible at selling Coca Cola.

Scale is a secret sauce in reaching this kind of maturity.

Stumbleupon probably has a lot of opportunities hidden in it for advertisers. But finding them & letting the right advertisers about them is the key.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've used SU almost daily for several years. Coolest thing since sliced bread.

The key is to subscribe to lots of people who are similar to you and then stumble on the "friends only" channel.

</comment><comment><USER12> Are there any articles explaining what needs to be done for a startup to be become independent again? I find it interesting that they can keep the StumbleUpon brand with no problem.

I assume it all depends on the terms of the acquisition. For instance, did eBay originally not get full rights to the StumbleUpon brand? Is there a formal negotiation process to settle these types of disputes?

<comment><USER13> Of course eBay got full rights to the SU brand. eBay essentially just SOLD StumbleUpon (to the original founders and some investors). Presumably they did the same thing that the founders did when they sold it to eBay in the first place-- they sold the brain/domain with it.

Of course, any deal can have any terms-- but 99% of acquisitions like this include the brand.</comment></comment>


HN: What is it with the BuildZoom story? - <AUTHOR> I keep seeing a story "Buildzoom AI for the Construction industry" but with no link for comments. Is this some sort of ad? <comment><USER2> Buildzoom went though YC, and YC companies can post job ads.

Past of posting a job ad is disabled comments.</comment>


Facebook's AI Points Internet Drones to Where the People Are - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/02/facebook-ai-shows-internet-drones-where-all-the-people-are/ <comment><USER2> Couple things.

I think it is pretty cool that a college social network has morphed into a horrifyingly privacy invading intelligience company just as much ad the next guy, but seriously WTF?

I assume there is a good reason they are using drones? The deep learning of satellite data was interesting, but why is it neccessary?

Assuming you just use planet labs or something similar to get data and you process it, you find the people. Makes sense. Except in the case that these people regularly migrate as nomadic beduins i guess you could serve your popup drone fleet at them as bushpeople don't have adblock.

But if they are just poor people who are trying to get by and live, to the extent possible, like many other people, I don't get it. Surely you have a chicken and an egg problem here, right?

They either have running water and some semblance of infrastructure like roads and power, or they don't. Unless Matk is going to airdrop a fission reactor wouldnt have been easier to ask thr power company or trace the lines?

Second thing. Why not towers, or just paying for LEO sattelite nets?

Don't get it, but I guesz it one ups self calibrating loon baloons...

<comment><USER3> > They either have running water and some semblance of infrastructure like > roads and power, or they don't.

That really doesn't apply to subsistence farming communities, for example in sub-Saharan Africa. Population will be much more dispersed than in more urbanised developed countries. You can have tiny farmsteads with a dozen people every 100 yards covering thousands of miles of apparently rural land. Connecting mains water or electricity is impossibly expensive, but cell phones can still be widely used though communal charging.

<comment><USER4> At the risk of being gauche...

If the main benefit of Facebook is advertising, why bother extending functionality to people who are too poor to buy anything?

<comment><USER5> I presume it will be targeted advertising.

But I don't know what the end goal is. Both the target market and the target publishers are a mystery so far as I can tell.

Perhaps government or regieme campaigns will be the main buyer of advertisements to such detatched communities. I wonder what the cost per conversion is for rural votes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A guy on Reddit yesterday posted about going to the mall and going into a makeup store with his girlfriend and later receiving ads for the same store in his Facebook feed. I'm not sure if he connected to the store's wifi or not, but still very creepy.

<comment><USER7> Doesn't really matter if he connected to the WiFi: even just having WiFi enabled/turned on means that you should assume every store that you enter knows that you're there, and every other retail store also knows (that you're inside a competitor's store).

There are a number of startups providing these services (some of them have gone through YC I think?). It's now so common that you just have to assume that if your phone is broadcasting anything at all, including looking for a WiFi network to join, that your location is being tracked and sold for competitive analysis by corporations.

<comment><USER8> Do we know for sure it's working: does that information lead to more sales ?

<comment><USER9> It's generally understood that it's quite effective to advertise to prior customers compared to say, targeting a geographic area.

Apparently it's about as effective as search ads: [http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/16/90-of-marketers-say- retarg...](http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/16/90-of-marketers-say-retargeting- now-as-good-as-search-ads-email-marketing/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If my job was how to craft national security policy in the face of asymmetrical warfare, I wouldn't be sleeping much anymore.

Self driving cars? Bad enough.

Self targeting drone swarms...?

'Prepping' just seems one tiny notch more rational.

</comment><comment><USER11> Quite an interesting approach to mapping, and it sounds pretty useful for the intended purpose. Conversely, I'm in the 'Lazlo Hollyfeld' boat of wondering what the purpose might be for the actual goals of Facebook, which isn't connectivity and internet altruism, but generating revenue. In this regard, I wonder what comes next, because looking at evidence of human activity will probably relay more rural and dirt-poor settlements than ones with disposable 'leisure time' and monies.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why would you use drones instead of a one-time mesh network install that is solar+wind powered with long term lithium battery backup?

One of these could be powered for a month off a shoebox sized battery:

[https://wiki.hackerspace.pl/projects:zsun-wifi-card- reader](https://wiki.hackerspace.pl/projects:zsun-wifi-card-reader)

Now mesh network them every few hundred feet.

<comment><USER13> Speed and latency, probably. They also probably think 1 UAV will be more reliable and easy to service than 100+ base stations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think I'm starting to get tired of "AI". We might as well call it "computer magic".

</comment><comment><USER15> [http://imgur.com/WNP6O3o](http://imgur.com/WNP6O3o) or, like, GFY and I'll go read everything else on the internet that isn't pay-walled.

<comment><USER16> I'm getting the same ad blocker screen, but the thing is, I'm not running an ad blocker.

Not sure how Wired's ad-blocker-detector works. I am on the campus of a large company that uses a shared proxy for outbound internet. If that's triggering the screen, that seems bad for Wired.

<comment><USER15> I use Ghostery, fwiw.

<comment><USER17> Enabling Adobe Tag Manager made the popup go away for me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Where do you find a co-founder for your startup? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Pick someone that you know (not necessarily a friend), but take a few precautions.

First, this person may completely change their character under pressure or a feeling of impending doom, just as you need them the most. You can work with someone in the same low stress job for years and you'd still be in for a surprise when the going gets rough.

Second, you need to walk a very fine line between selling them on your idea on one hand and making sure your future prospects and goals are aligned. Selling someone a dream is easy, but it's just not enough for coping with the ongoing brutal wear that's startup work.

Third, make sure this person complements your skills with as small of an overlap as possible.

Fourth, assign responsibilities from day one, and aim for a vesting period for stock ownership (for all founders!) so if he ditches, you won't find yourself with a defunct company.

So to sum it, it's not so much about where to find a cofounder, as much as it is managing the process and expectations.

</comment><comment><USER3> I agree with @alain94040. The best co-founder are your former classmates, co- workers, and the other people you have already worked with and know. Look for really smart people who are around you that possesses a skill that you lack. i.e. If you're technical, try to find somebody who is business oriented.

I would also hit up Meetups, Users Groups, and maybe Alumni mixers. Chances are you might run into an old co-worker/class mate that shares similar interests.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hope this helps: [http://www.slideshare.net/alain94040/co-founder- issues](http://www.slideshare.net/alain94040/co-founder-issues)

The best co-founders are people you already worked with. Go back in time, even for ex co-workers you think wouldn't be interested, meet the ones you deeply respect and start meeting with them for coffee.

Maybe they'll be interested, or at least they can recommend someone else they trust who could be. Repeat.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you have to ask, then you may want to consider flying solo.

(Sorry if it sounds a bit negative)

</comment><comment><USER6> [http://app.colunchers.com/](http://app.colunchers.com/) might help you

</comment><comment><USER7> This may be helpful:

[http://cofounderslab.com](http://cofounderslab.com)

</comment><comment><USER8> Someone you have worked with for > 1 year and do not have doubts about.</comment>


Ethernal Message – Don't let your words die. Make them eternal - <AUTHOR> https://ethernalmessage.com/ <comment><USER2> Hi, author here.

The idea was to "romanticize" blockchain. Take the main properties of blockchain - immutability, irreversibility, replication, accessibility and create something romantic and beautiful on top of it.

It's kind of milliondollar website spinoff - using words instead of pictures and very different pricing model. Every time message is submitted, the price for the next one is increased 1.618 times.

The main page displays last submitted message, though old messages are available to read. The logic is that the person who paid the last - paid the most and therefore earns the exclusive right to have his/her message on the homepage. Until someone else pays more.</comment>


If your Tesla knows where you are, China may too - <AUTHOR> https://www.apnews.com/4a749a4211904784826b45e812cff4ca <comment><USER2> HN title is clickbait and doesn't match the article. (HN title: If your Tesla knows where you are, China May too)

Tesla vehicles sold in China report location data to the Chinese government.

> But other countries that are major markets for electronic vehicles — the > United States, Japan, across Europe — do not collect this kind of real-time > data.

<comment><USER3> But it kinda is though. Honestly, I don't know why but this doesn't really surprised me at all. China is, and continues to go crazy serious with their AI business so the Chinese government knowing your location shouldn't be a shock to anyone anymore. However, it's nice to finally hear the Chinese people voice their opinion about this. I mean, it's a good idea for tracking criminals, but for common people, yeah, that's just creepy.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I work for one company, but write code for another. Could this be bad? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I'm employed by company A, at which I write software for company A. This is a straight-forward situation.
Company A created a second legal entity, company B. Company B started out as a separate company that company A would sell software under, for licensing reasons that are beyond me.
Recently though, I've been tasked with writing software specifically for company B. As in, I am now managing a team of developers who work for company B, and are writing software for company B, that B will sell. It is meant to be completely separate from A, legally. Now, whether technically it is or not, I do not know - I'm just part of this larger plan.
I'm the only employee at company A working within this cross-company configuration. I'm wondering if there's anything I should be concerned about, or if I should bring anything up with my bosses about this. If so, what should I be asking for? I kind of feel like I'm being overused, but don't really know how to go about handling it. <comment><USER2> A few things you can do: a) Ask HR what entity is paying you (probably still A) b) Ask your Boss which company s(he) is working for (reporting lines are important in HR's eye's) c) Once you know what organization is paying you and what reporting lines you report into, then you can have a better idea of where you actually work. d) If it's all A and you are doing a whole bunch of work for B, then it's time to have a sit-down with boss to clarify things. e) You can always ask for a legal (sometimes free) consultation about what your rights are, what your tax implications are, etc...

</comment><comment><USER3> This is unusual, but doesn't seem like a problem. You are working for company A and being contracted out to company B as a "consultant." B is probably paying A for your services assuming they are in fact separate corporations.

</comment><comment><USER4> Assuming company B is a subsidiary of company A, there is nothing to worry about for you.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a tool to "find startups like ____"? - <AUTHOR>

Simple question, are there any existing tools in which I can input a startup's name and find others like it? Shared investors + AngelList/CrunchBase tags could be used as a proxy, but there has to be more than that. <comment><USER2> Quora is usually a good place for finding stuff like this. Usually someone has already asked a question for startups similar to X (assuming X is popular enough), and one of the answers is usually rather comprehensive.

For example: [http://www.quora.com/What-startups-are-working-on-Uber- for-X](http://www.quora.com/What-startups-are-working-on-Uber-for-X)?

</comment><comment><USER3> Not trying to troll but Google usually works just fine for that kind of thing. However I do accept that it would be nice to have a utility designed specifically for that kind of question.

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://heisenberg.ziraffe.in/](http://heisenberg.ziraffe.in/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Product Hunt?

</comment><comment><USER6> Mattermark</comment>


Expensify's Free Expense Report System Takes The Hassle Out of Reimbursements - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/11/expensifys-free-expense-report-system-takes-the-hassle-out-of-reimbursements/ <comment><AUTHOR> I met these guys at TC50. The product, along with them is the real deal. They also gave away free liquor at their demo table, which made watching Yammer win the best company award a little bit more bearable. They sold their last startup to Akamai, so they're not a bunch of noobs running around with your expense information. Glad to hear it's free now. If you do expense reports (my condolences), check them out for sure.</comment>


"...a nice reminder of how costly it once was to store and spread information..." - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06wwln-lede-t.html?ex=1357275600&en=749069698ac001a3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> "costly"

It doesn't require a multi-billion dollar infrastructure behind the curtains in order to be usable.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why, in an age of free information, would anyone need to log in to view an article?</comment>


How to avoid fearing data migration? - <AUTHOR> So I've been spinning my wheels on multiple side projects lately due to one, main concern: Data/schema migration.
My projects are often applications to store data about my life. Anything from wiki pages, to file storage, it's just side projects that tend to interest me. However lately, I've been largely obsessing with choosing "perfect" schemas in projects that are more than just inside of a DB.
If it was in a DB (MySQL/etc), migration isn't a concern, it's well understood. However I'm often writing my own storage mechanisms, such as storing images on disk or chunked bytes, whatever. So then if I realize I'm missing something, say crypto signing the blobs, I fear needing to change them after I've uploaded a TB worth of data to them.
So I don't even know what to ask, but I figure this has to be a more common problem than I realize. Are there articles that talk about managing your own data and ensuring that it always has a migration path?
Hopefully my problem is clear, but I'm sorry for not being able to define a better question in this context. Any tips for similar projects would be appreciated! <comment><USER2> Maybe you can use one of the data interchange protocols that has a story for backward/forward compatibility? Something like Apache Avro or Protocol Buffers should allow you to work with different versions of your data at the same time.

See: [http://martin.kleppmann.com/2012/12/05/schema-evolution- in-a...](http://martin.kleppmann.com/2012/12/05/schema-evolution-in-avro- protocol-buffers-thrift.html)

His book "Designing Data-Intensive Applications" has a section on this.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you've scripted the data migration, what besides wait time is the difference between migrating a KB of data and migrating a TB of data?

<comment><AUTHOR> Data churn, I think. But good question, I've debated the same.

My current thought on migration is that I'm going to write what is effectively a database _(again, it 's storing files locally and blah)_. Then, if I need to make a schema change, I'll literally copy the db code to a v2 db. The v1 will have vendored data types, so nothing outside of v1 can "break" the code. v1 will also incur no dev time because it's entirely isolated.

So "migration" basically pulls the entire database from v1 -> v2, storing it however v2 is written to.

What I don't like with this model is as you mentioned, it incurs a lot of cost of storage, bandwidth, who knows if a large migration is needed between many versions. v1 -> v2 -> v3 -> v4 and etc. Taking a TB library from v1 to disk to v2 to v3 and so forth seems.. costly. Furthermore, doing it purely in memory is optimal, but then I'm likely writing lots of code specifically tailored for in memory migration. Where as I'm hoping to basically pipe v1:read -> v2:write as the "migrations".

On the plus side though, this is mainly a development concern, and that's likely to only affect me.. I guess I'm just obsessing, and I really don't like that there doesn't feel like a clear solution here. I've not encountered this professionally.

Strangely, professionally I've had the _potential_ to run into this, but we've always dealt with it manually. Ie, if we change how we store files on S3, it's usually a one-off fix. Here I'm trying to avoid managing my data like that, I just want to write features and have "rock solid" storage.. which means no one off scripts, and instead proven migrations.

Anyway, this is just a bunch of rambling. You can't help me with this I'm sure lol, but if you've dealt with filesystem migrations professionally I'd be really curious to see what you've done. All I've ever seen for migrations was traditional SQL migrations.</comment></comment>


Coiled Computing - <AUTHOR> https://coiled.io/blog/hello-world.html <comment><USER2> I would appreciate if you clarified what Dask is at the beginning of the post. I'm a Python developer and it's the first time I hear about it and I had to scroll pretty much to the end for a link to its documentation.

<comment><USER3> I would've appreciated it if you clarified this in your own comment :)

<comment><USER4> [https://dask.org/](https://dask.org/)

> Dask provides advanced parallelism for analytics, enabling performance at > scale for the tools you love

edit: removed comments

<comment><USER5> > It will also shard data between machines to allow analysis on data that is > larger than memory.

[https://yourdatafitsinram.net/](https://yourdatafitsinram.net/)

<comment><USER6> [https://distributed.dask.org/en/latest/efficiency.html#don-t...](https://distributed.dask.org/en/latest/efficiency.html#don- t-go-distributed)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone here had positive experiences with Dask?

I chose it as an alternative to manual batching, where a dataset couldn't fit into memory. Anecdotally, it was great when it worked, but caused a lot of random bugs, and I spent more time fixing them than the time it saved in the first place. (This was mid-2019 so maybe it has improved since then)

<comment><AUTHOR> I generally share your criticism, but my overall experience has been positive. Dask indeed requires some fiddling, and it's API and documentation has some blind spots, but I've successfully used it to scale up some Pandas code to run on dataframes measuring in the tens of GB. Being able to transfer my knowledge of Pandas and NumPy so readily makes Dask's speed bumps worth it.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for sharing your experience!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It would be more true to GVR's original inspiration for the language if Python-based businesses named themselves things like "Ministry of Silly Walks", "The Antlers of Dictation", "Tobacconist", or "Bevis, Be Gentle!" rather than "Coiled", "Anaconda", etc. ;-)</comment>


Must Work Without JavaScript? - <AUTHOR> https://meiert.com/en/blog/must-work-without-javascript/ <comment><USER2> A more pertinent point is that if your website doesn't really need JavaScript, and most don't, then it will be faster, more reliable and require less maintenance if you simply don't use it. There are also security risks if you depend on a huge tree of JavaScript libraries from unidentified people.

I've lost count of the number of times I have been unable to buy something online because JavaScript bugs or incompatibilities prevented me from completing the purchase. (It's probably about two or three times. I'm bad at counting, OK?)

</comment><comment><USER3> One word: accessibility. Nope? Very well, carry on. (The remark "that's your own fault for using a screenreader [i.e. text browser]" is needlessly flippant, though.)

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like an excuse for making websites riddled with lots of unnecessary JavaScript.</comment>


T-Mobile backs Ubuntu smartphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/t-mobile-backs-ubuntu-smartphone-7000018916/ <comment><USER2> I have a $30/mo unlimited (5GB at 4G) data/messaging (100 min talk time) no- contract plan with T-Mobile and I use Skype for lots of calling. Works great for me in LA. Almost always have LTE access. No problems whatsoever.

[http://consumerist.com/2013/06/07/t-mobile- has-a-30-unlimite...](http://consumerist.com/2013/06/07/t-mobile- has-a-30-unlimited-data-plan-for-people-who-arent-very-chatty-but-can-current- customers-get-it/)

This just makes me like them even more. Competition is forcing them to actually think about ways of making mobile phone/data service not suck.

<comment><USER3> Wow! How much are you paying each month after fees, taxes, etc? I have the same service with AT&T, except I get 700 minutes a month. But I'm paying about $90/mo.

Your service includes tethering, right?

<comment><USER4> I have the same plan. Tethering is an additional $15/month, for a total of $45. Still a far cry from $90. I use it in Portland and the service is great. (Total after taxes is $48.50)

<comment><USER3> May I ask, how much do you pay each month after taxes and fees? (Assuming you opted for tethering.) Something like $45 + $10 taxes/fees?

<comment><USER5> T-Mobile prepaid plans are great in that regard. I only pay the New York sales tax on top of the quoted price (8.875% or something). My parents were on AT&T and they were paying close to $15 in mysterious fees + taxes per line, for dumbphone lines without data plans. I convinced them to move to T-Mobile prepaid, seems to work well so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like T-Mobile because they are strive to put the consumer first. They may not have the widest coverage, or the fastest speeds, but they usually do a good enough job at coverage/speed. Along with this, their customer support is the only cell phone company I've ever had a pleasant experience with. They are also trying to actually advance the cell phone market for the better, unlike most other companies trying to squeeze it for all it's worth and to hell with the future.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is there now a realistic scenario for them funding Ubuntu Edge?

[http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu- edge](http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge)

<comment><USER8> I don't get it; there seems little upside to that venture, when they could fund a designer and manufacturer that has a record (Re: Google and Asus, LG, etc). You should be able to slap the OS in anything.

<comment><USER9> They will do that if they fail:

> If we don't reach our target then we will focus only on commercially > available handsets and there will not be an Ubuntu Edge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is Ubuntu going to accept blackbox baseband stacks and microsd card blobs? Would be nice if they actually made an open phone but I highly doubt that will happen. If this was a completely open project I'd give them all my money but looking pretty feeble. I can just customize android and boot tiny debian whenever I want what's the difference? yet another box full of firmware we can't touch unless it's to reverse engineer and analyze it's frightening insecure writable memory.

<comment><USER11> I haven't seen an SoC with a binary driver for the SD card since the Zaurus's 2.4 kernel. What are you referring to here? I'm not even sure that SDMI is supported by all MMC/SD host controllers anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like T-Mobile as a company, and their prices are great. But their network is ridiculous.

Here in NYC I don't have _any_ service inside many buildings. Many areas are EDGE only. In Williamsburg, where I live, there are lots of holes in their coverage where I have no service; and that is outside on the street. They also have serious service outages occurring surprisingly often. I shudder to think what the coverage is outside metropolitan areas like NYC.

While complaining about data rates is one thing, a side effect of the bad coverage is that my phone spends a huge amount of power just adjusting itself to the signal. In Europe I am used to charging my iPhone a couple of times a week; here, my phone is dead by the end of the day.

<comment><USER13> Really? I have great service with T-Mobile in NYC, including Manhattan and Williamsburg. In many places with crowds of people, my friends who have AT&T aren't able to get service while I still get great HSDPA reception.

Just curious, what hardware are you using?

<comment><USER12> iPhone 4.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Has anyone else installed Ubuntu for phones? Am I the only person that finds the interface beautiful but useless? Absolutely nothing about it seemed intuitive.

<comment><USER15> Ubuntu Touch on my Nexus 4 is the only mobile OS I use. The interface takes getting used to and is beautiful. I also like the fact that it over heats so much that, when rested in my jacket pocket, it keeps my left nipple nice and warm.

Seriously though, each week it seems to get better, and there's nothing like having apt-get on your phone. Hopefully Touch will be a success and help introduce more people to Linux. (I know Android is Linux but it doesn't feel like Linux)

<comment><USER16> Jailbroken iPhone users and N900 users would definitely agree that apt-get is a must have if you're a dev/geek.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The phone you want, on the network you don't.

<comment><USER18> I was under the impression that the Edge wasn't going to have an AWS-capable GSM chip, which makes this announcement really confusing for me.

<comment><USER19> This isn't talking about the same phone.

Although it would be funnier if it were. The Ubuntu Edge for the network with more EDGE (2G-only areas) than anyone else!

I like T-Mobile, but their network is sadly behind in many areas. It's also suffering from capacity problems in my area now.

<comment><USER18> Oh, they're just joining the advisory group. Clearly didn't read the article closely enough.

Hmm, so I guess (assuming Ubuntu ever gains traction in the mobile space -- ha, ha) T-mo just wants the option to find a hardware partner one day and put Ubuntu on some new phone in partnership with them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is www. deprecated? - <AUTHOR>

Really, why does (nearly) every website start with  www. instead of allowing access directly through their main domain? Wouldn't it be time to call the death of the www subdomain? What is HN's opinion on the matter? <comment><USER2> Agree completely. I am surprised it has persisted so long; the positive reason I can think of is that people are familiar enough with it that 'w w w dot (something)' is a useful cue for people listening to radio or TV adverts, who might otherwise not register the internet context until they hear the 'dot com'.

For example 'Attention listeners! Are you sick of your nose? Get a new one at Doctor Bob's rhinoplasty. Whether you want roman, retrousse, or rhonocerous, we have them all in stock! Just go to...'

...our office on 5001 big highway? or nosesbybob.com? Of course, you could signal with 'point your browser to...' but apparently a majority of people don't even know what a browser is, they just think of it-and-the-web as 'the internet'. So I think 'wwwdot'* will stick around as an aural cue.

On the other hand, any sysadmin who doesn't redirect automatically from the main domain should be shot.

* There was once a comedy program on TV that used to read it out as 'wuh wuh wuh dot...,' and I have to admit that this is how I've always thought of the string in my own mind.

</comment><comment><USER3> I expect we can agree that (1) sites ought to be accessible by both the bare domain name and the www subdomain, and (2) to avoid cross-domain cookie/AJAX/analytics (etc.) issues, one should be chosen as the canonical form, and the other silently redirected to that.

But which should be canonical?

Recently I tend to go for the bare domain for sites with a more technical audience, and www for sites I hope will attract some more normal visitors.

My feeling is that most of the times I speak a URL to someone non-technical, they mentally add www to it (they often clarify verbally that they're doing that, too). Even if, like this site, it's already a subdomain. Seems like it's comforting - why fight it?

</comment><comment><USER4> There are some minor technical niceties with using www as the main one, in that you can CNAME it to somewhere else, while you can't CNAME a bare domain.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes, as of August 14, 2003. (Of course opinions may vary.)

<http://no-www.org/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Allow access through both. Whether you default to using www or not is up to you.

On the one hand it's four more characters to type, but on the other hand lots of people still expect web addresses to start www.

</comment><comment><USER7> Its information value is 0.

If it is just the website everybody just assumes www. is at the beginning, ignore it (or type the domain name in google).

</comment><comment><USER8> It should be dead for a few years by now.</comment>


DNSFS – Store files in others' DNS resolver caches - <AUTHOR> https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/dns-filesystem-true-cloud-storage-dnsfs <comment><USER2> Awesome article! Interesting related work is in [1], where we used DNS TTLs as a covert channel for passing data, without needing to control the domain(s) being used. Through the development of that covert channel, we found a variety of idiosyncrasies such in the client-side DNS infrastructure and discussed them in [2]. Some devices will report an erroneously high TTL, some will unnecessarily shorten the TTL, some represent entire clusters of DNS resolvers with interesting properties, and so on. Based on your work, it appears that over the past five years, the number of open resolvers has dropped dramatically, from ~30M to ~3M.

Your email response really is indicative of some of the folks that get cranky when you send them packets :)

[1]: [http://research.tom.callahan.us/pubs/icsi- tr-12-002.pdf](http://research.tom.callahan.us/pubs/icsi-tr-12-002.pdf)

[2]: [http://research.tom.callahan.us/pubs/imc029-schompAemb.pdf](http://research.tom.callahan.us/pubs/imc029-schompAemb.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> I wish I had a more insightful comment, but I'll just say this:

I love posts like this where someone applies a theoretical concept in a fun and interesting (even if not practical) way.

</comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of this, one of my all-time favorites:

[http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/juggling_with_packets.txt](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/juggling_with_packets.txt)

Guessing date as circa 2003. Could be wrong.

As for DNS, djbdns can store arbitrary bytes in RR (e.g., TXT), as octal. For example, modified dnstxt can print formatted text stored in TXT records, with linefeeds, etc.

<comment><USER5> a couple other silly projects that attempt to store data without using disk space (some cheating required):

πfs (a file system) [https://github.com/philipl/pifs](https://github.com/philipl/pifs)

0byte (a programming language) [https://github.com/MarkDunne/0byte](https://github.com/MarkDunne/0byte)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Super fun article. I also like to see a "real" implementation of crazy ideas like this.

Can anyone confirm if the Microsoft DNS servers default to caching an unlimited amount of data? The article claims "Unlimited??" as the default for these systems. Eyeballing the pie chart looks like 20% of the servers are running Microsoft, which could provide quite a lot of storage.

<comment><USER7> Even unlimited is bound by memory/storage with probably an LRU eviction scheme. So unless your stored data is hot, or their storage is very large, it might not stay around long.

<comment><USER8> need a background worker that periodically reads all data to keep things in cache (like a raid or SSD background check).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ingenious!

An enhancement of this technique could be used on one's own private network of DNS resolvers for the specific purpose of acting like a highly available directory of private cloud nodes, storing the following information:

      host:service:port:protocol

encoded in one DNS TXT record per service.

This would kind of be like a mashup of Apple Bonjour and this technique.

The big question is, how long to cache the information for in such a setup, assuming the cloud itself is highly unreliable, so as to make the entire thing extremely fault tolerant?

<comment><USER10> Wouldn't simply caching DNS SRV[1] records do that?

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRV_record)

<comment><USER9> Maybe; I haven't fully thought it all through yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Too bad he couldn't use FUSE. Would be nice to do `ls` and other commands with this.

</comment><comment><USER12> While an interesting use, abusing DNS in a similar way has beena long known (15 year) security vulnerability. For example, OzymanDNS. Even then, that was just one of the first published exploits. People had been performing DNS tunneling for some time.

There are detectors of DNS abuse that I imagine the people who actually would store files in DNS would not want pointed at their files.

<comment><USER13> Yes! Reading the description of DNSFS, i was sure Dan Kaminsky had done something like this years ago, but couldn't track it down - Dan Kaminsky has done a _lot_ of things with DNS.

<comment><USER12> Indeed! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wish I had more to add than: "This is so neat!"

Seem's like this would be a good way to circumvent web filters that block remote file services (though allow DNS over tcp or udp).

How would one restrict this capability from an administrative perspective?

<comment><USER15> People are already sneaking data through DNS in both directions. Here's a quick example from a year ago that popped in my head first: [http://4lemon.ru/2017-01-17_facebook_imagetragick_remote_cod...](http://4lemon.ru/2017-01-17_facebook_imagetragick_remote_code_execution.html)

<comment><USER14> This is very neat as well. Still trying to understand it.

I have tested various use cases for Iodine, which works great, unless you are blocking all outbound dns traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Fun article, kudos!

Just a tiny correction: RIPE Atlas' reliability tags (e.g., "-stable-Xd") have nothing to do with the probe "changing the public IP address once a day". Those filter simply measure the probe's uptime over different time windows.

In fact, the "-stable-1d" tag you mentioned would be true even for probes that have been down "up to 2h" over the last day.

</comment><comment><USER17> You can use the dig utility to see if a DNS server is recursive. Just do the scan in two steps. One major port scan using masscan, netscan, etc., then a smaller scan of the IPs with port 53 open to see if they are recursive or not. You'll see this in dig's output if the server is not recursive:

        ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm surprised at the marketshare dnsmasq has, I would've thought BIND and dnsmasq numbers to be flipped.

<comment><USER19> dnsmasq is very popular with SOHO routers.

<comment><USER20> And just about every mobile device (hotspot mode)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Ha! Combine this idea with my proof-of-concept CDN53 Chrome extension and it would be serving websites directly from others' DNS resolvers =:)

</comment><comment> dh-g Great, article. I've noticed a trend with anything which requires masscan is probably going to be fun/interesting.</comment>


OpenBSD: This change randomizes the order of symbols in libc.so at boot time - <AUTHOR> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=146159002802803&w=2 <comment><USER2> Rewriting libc will change it's hash each time, which flies in the face of reproducible binaries. It seems like a messy hack and that there should be a more elegant way to achieve the same result without rewriting important libraries.

Is it possible to reorder the symbols on the fly as the library is loaded?

<comment><USER3> With respect to reproducible builds, you could define a hash function which has deliberate collisions for binaries which are semantically equivalent.

In this case, what you would do is sort the symbols to produce a new binary, then run the binary with sorted symbols through sha256. So you're no longer asking if your binary is byte-for-byte equal to someone else's binary, you're asking if your binary is byte-for-byte equal if their symbols were sorted.

It complicates matters because you now have to do this custom reordering step before you hash (which means you can no longer do it easily with sha256sum or the type of program you might write in CS 101 that compares files byte-for- byte, you have to have trusted code which gets into the guts of the ELF format and reorder the symbols which increases the complexity and attack surface for reproducible binaries.)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you could make a smart symbol sorting hash program, increasing complexity. Now it's a hack on top of a hack. This rewriting also complicates mounting your libraries as read-only (ie, immutable system).

If it's worth doing, surely the rest of the libraries would benefit as well. From a performance standpoint, it's pretty quick for libc, how slow will it be to do this for all libraries?

We have ASLR; is there a fundamental reason why ASLR can't be modified/extended/repurposed to achieve the same goal?</comment></comment></comment>


The ecosystem is moving (2019) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21904041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21904041)

See also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11668912](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11668912)

</comment><comment><USER3> Ummm, Moxie Marlinspike requested that this presentation not be recorded. We should delete this link as well.

<comment><USER4> That's quite contrary to the whole CCC philosophy though of freely sharing knowledge. But indeed he linked to it himself.

One thing I don't like about Signal though, is that he forbids third-party clients. It's a bit contrary to owning your information, which is one of the points he makes in the talk. One of the reasons I want this is to integrate all my chats into one single app - there's too many apps right now screaming for attention. That's why I'm more a fan of Matrix, which is truly open.</comment></comment>


How to host your site on S3 for $0.12/month - <AUTHOR> http://blog.shopforcloud.com/2012/04/how-to-host-your-site-on-s3-for.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I should add that this site just started a few months ago and has around 5K pageviews/month. Anyone else using S3 for their static sites? If so, do you recommend AWS CloudFront for this and is it worth the extra pennies?</comment>


Show HN: Drink Plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.drinkplan.com <comment><USER2> Something that really pisses me off about Yelp and others is that it's now pretty much impossible to figure out where to go. Search Happy Hours on Yelp and you get a bunch of expensive restaurants that might not even be open, not $1 beers. The results are so cluttered with other non-useful data that finding the closest, cheapest, dingiest bar at 5 on a Friday is just not gonna happen.

<comment><USER3> You can filter/sort by price too on yelp but I know what you mean. A lot of it is the format of their results and how impossibly slow the maps are.

Might be solvable with a "find similar" function that lets you put in a bar you like and finds similar listings close to your location.

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately in SF $ can apparently mean $15 for a sandwich and says absolutely nothing about the price of their happy hour beer. The thing is that I really don't want similar places, I want to know which places have a happy hour and how much a beer is. More specifically, I want to know the closest place offering dollar beer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm assuming this only works with Chicago?

</comment><comment><USER5> Great concept, but add NYC please!

<comment><USER6> add all the cities

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is cool, now I just have to move to Chicago.

</comment><comment><USER8> That's a long drive for a beer.

</comment><comment><USER9> hehe this is awesome</comment>


Platform Wars: Simulating the Battle for Video Game Supremacy - <AUTHOR> https://mitsloan.mit.edu/LearningEdge/simulations/platform-wars/Pages/default.aspx <comment><USER2> I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that their simulation model is not very robust :-D

My best attempt out of 5 gave me $20.7G in profit vs. -$300M for the competitor. This was with selling consoles at cost, a 90% royalty rate, and subsidizing 20 games / year. Taking that to the logical conclusion with a 100% royalty rate only got me to $18G, though maybe that could have been tweaked a bit.

This is obviously absurd. Maybe it's representative of a console that allows no third party development. That's unlikely to be a winning strategy in the real world.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here is an interesting case study - Sony's Battle for Video Game Supremacy ([https://mitsloan.mit.edu/LearningEdge/strategy/SonysBattle/P...](https://mitsloan.mit.edu/LearningEdge/strategy/SonysBattle/Pages/Battle- for-Video-Game-Supremacy_Sterman.aspx))</comment>