Node-os - <AUTHOR> https://node-os.com/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8299523](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8299523)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7061338](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7061338)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8275426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8275426)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7877777](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7877777)

<comment><USER3> And don't forget:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?q=node%20os](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=node%20os)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lots of people are going to hate on this, but clearly it's a tinkerer trying to do something fun.

Yes: JavaScript isn't necessarily the best tool for the job, but so what? Fun hack. I'm not sure it's the future, but maybe it could be? Why not.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't imagine an idea that is worse than this. Yes, let's take a community approach to OS, fine. But relying on a language that is neither efficient nor designed with the core needs of an operating system is self defeating at best.

<comment><USER6> While I'd agree that it's not a good idea for a lot of purposes, that doesn't mean it's simply not a good idea. People will either be interested in playing with it or they wont, in which case it will simply cease to be developed, and the code will float around the Internet as an example of a cool little experiment. Either way, Node OS is not going to hurt anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I saw the best minds of my generation wasted by coding everything in javascript

<comment><USER3> It's unfortunate that you see javascript, or that any engineer would see any language, that way. JavaScript is an incredibly expressive language and has a very real and beneficial place alongside strongly-typed and compiled languages.

We ought to recognize the use cases, as much as humanly possible, for all languages or frameworks or platforms (etc.) and simply use the best tools for any given job.

<comment><USER8> > We ought to recognize the use cases, as much as humanly possible, for all > languages or frameworks or platforms

I wouldn't exactly consider Operating Systems to be one of those use cases for Javascript. The flip side of knowing the use cases is knowing the limitations and understanding that "everything" isn't exactly a valid use case, which I believe is what larme was trying to say.

<comment><USER3> I do see your point, and agree there. I initially (perhaps mistakenly) read larme's comment as "everything coded in javascript is a waste."

I will say, though, that exploring the possibilities for a language is _not_ a waste of time or mind. From stretching both mind and tool to do new things, new insight can be gained or patterns formed that might never have been considered.

Additionally, nobody ever said an OS has to be the best at everything either. It could be that a javascript-based OS, while perhaps not as efficient at generating machine code, may end up being much more efficient for humans. This would certainly be a win for many tasks such as management that should be optimized for human use.

<comment><USER8> I agree. Didn't mean to say that this project wasn't interesting or a waste of time or anything like that -- it definitely has its own merits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, sincere question (but a little bit rethoric, i confess):

Why someone would want this instead of a Linux box with node.js + npm? i mean, it would be understandable if this was a docker image with a javascript toolbox builtin, to make the life of js devs easier, but a OS distribution?

With this you would be able to install, say, haskell or a rust dev environment, and if it does, whats the difference from a ubuntu linux with node/npm with haskell and rust?

I dont get the use-case here.. is there really a niche for this?

"Node-os is the first operating system powered by npm"

And? why is it good? why do i need it? sell me the idea! is npm something a need badly? is enough reason for a OS dist?

</comment><comment><USER10> This thing pops up on HN every other month

</comment><comment><USER11> If node-js is based on Chrome's Javascript engine. Did you just make a alternative Chrome-OS?</comment>


Men twice as likely to have flexible work hours requests knocked back: study - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/men-more-likely-to-have-flexible-work-requests-knocked-back/7137208 <comment><USER2> Sounds pretty believable. I do wonder if that one where "My boss told me I wouldn't be able to get promoted working part-time" is counted as a rejection though.</comment>


Show HN: Ghostwheel – easy spec, side effect detection and tracing for Clojure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gnl/ghostwheel <comment><AUTHOR> Fellow Clojurians, I present to you, Ghostwheel.

It makes the writing, reading, refactoring, testing, instrumentation and stubbing of function specs easy; introduces a concise syntax for inline fspec definitions; helps keep track of side effects; and makes general debugging almost fun, with full evaluation tracing of function I/O, local bindings and all threading macros.

It's Alpha software and the Clojure port, while essentially functional, still needs some love to achieve full feature parity with ClojureScript – most prominently missing at the moment is the tracing functionality.

To steal a quote from Nathan Marz' Specter in a blatant attempt at a so far likely undeserved comparison to its indispensability, I like to think of Ghostwheel as clojure.spec's missing piece. It has become quite essential to me and I hope that you will find it useful too.

Feedback, PRs, and issue reports are welcome and much appreciated.

Do your thing, HN.

<comment><USER2> This looks great! Is there a way to make it work with existing specced code? I already have a large codebase with lots of fdefs. Can Ghostweel work with them without modification?

Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> At the moment you can set the gspec to nil, but that would simply disable s/fdef generation and all of the spec-related magic. I'm planning to introduce a configuration option with the next release to force Ghostwheel to trust that there's an external s/fdef for that function and still do all the spec stuff.

There may be some limitations on this compared to using inline gspecs – I have to play around with it a bit, but I think it should work fine. Until then, you can still use Ghostwheel for tracing and side effect detection though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is it just me or is Clojure(script) becoming more and more syntax-heavy with each passing year?

<comment><USER4> A subtle advantage of having a macro system is that you only pay the price of having unconventional syntax if you opt into it. You can keep the core language small and push weird syntax into macros, which can be imported like libraries.

The core language of Clojure is pretty small and simple compared with most other languages.

<comment><AUTHOR> While that is true of the basic building blocks of the language, clojure.spec for example does have an overly verbose syntax (I would define it that way, even though it doesn't introduce new basic syntax elements) for function specs and that was one of the main motivations for writing Ghostwheel.

I wouldn't see this as some sort of development in Clojure though and I don't really know if that's what cutler meant anyway. Maybe he'll elaborate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks promising, can you expand on how this differs from clojure.spec and core.typed?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is basically generative testing using clojure.spec in a nice package with a cherry on top and a few extras.

core.typed still seems to be quite experimental and not yet production-ready, but it certainly looks very promising and I'm keeping an eye on it. It currently also doesn't work on ClojureScript, which has been the primary platform for Ghostwheel so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool, will try it out!</comment>


Bubbles, bubbles everywhere but none to pop - <AUTHOR> http://traceacohen.tumblr.com/post/66031287262/bubbles-bubbles-everywhere-but-none-to-pop <comment><AUTHOR> What do you think? Just because companies are raising hundreds of millions of dollars, doesn't mean we're in a bubble.</comment>


The Coming Eviction Crisis: 'It's Hard to Pay the Bills on Nothing' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/opinion/evictions-foreclosures-covid-economy.html <comment><USER2> Ironic. Were experiencing collective chocking by corporate, both in life, and online.

No where to run. No where to hide.</comment>


12 Years of Portability Thanks to OpenGL: Mac - Windows - iPhone (and more) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.insightvr.com/?p=209 How using a standards compliant library let me port a game that started as a CS course assignment to multiple platforms and eventually to the iPhone. <comment><USER2> The list of games written with OpenGL: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OpenGL_programs>

Notable games: Doom 3, Far Cry, Max Payne, the Quake series, Red Faction, Runescape, Second Life, Spore, Star Wars: Jedi Knight and Star Wars: KOTOR, Unreal Tournament, UT2004, UT3, Warcraft 3, WoW.

Most of the big-name ones default to Direct3D when they're running on Windows though.

I have very little idea of how D3D and OpenGL work (I've never written anything substantial with them), but I'm very interested in the idea of an open standard for rendering games. That portability story in the post is great.

What's the deal with D3D? How is it better than OpenGL?

<comment><USER3> They were much of a muchness. Like a lot of things Microsoft, the early versions of D3D were pretty poor, but they listened to feedback from devs and so on and iterated it up to a worthwile competitor to OpenGL, which stood still for many a year (extensions notwithstanding).

Also early on I think driver support was an important factor in D3D getting traction, as proper OpenGL support was mostly only in the blindingly expensive workstation graphics market.

Nowadays I think on the PC most games are D3D because that gets you a long way towards an xbox360 port.

<comment><USER4> > a long way towards an xbox360 port.

"The Xbox (name derived from "DirectX box")"</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Group travel made easy – plan together, pay separately - <AUTHOR> https://pack.spg.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> My travel startup is powering group planning and booking for pack.spg.com. Our collaborative technology lets multiple people plan a trip together – invite cotravelers, share feedback, create individual and group itineraries, and even split the cost of hotel reservations.

View a sample trip at: [https://pack.spg.com/trips/dawn- dream-d04a/invite/e70d9af2a8...](https://pack.spg.com/trips/dawn- dream-d04a/invite/e70d9af2a85a4496bfa4dc94f036fdef/)</comment>


Ask HN: Am I right or just procrastinating? - <AUTHOR> I already know python and Flask but I have this burning desire to switch over to Ruby on Rails. Everything about it seems so appealing and time-saving, from the documentation to the quality of support sites like rubygems. Flask/django have nothing like this and are such a mess in comparison. Is learning a new language/framework worth the time investment or am I just addicted to wasting time? <comment><USER2> Rails and Flask are apples and oranges; something like Sinatra would be closer. There's no way to know if it's a "waste of time" because we don't know what you're doing or why. There are more Rails-like frameworks for Python.

If you have a "burning desire" to learn something, then learn it. But the notion that it'll magically make all your development easier is a pipe dream.

<comment><AUTHOR> i'm attemptimg to make something, so far with flask, that has left me with what i'd consider a cobbled-together mess of random extensions, some maintained, some not, some snippits of code gathered here or there over the years. it does work but for how long and can i really trust it to run a business on? my gut says "no".

i'm aware of the other other python frameworks but most of them fair even worse in the areas i'm concerned about. most are abandonware or small projects that will be difficult to get help with. django is the obvious answer but theres alot of things that really rub me wrong about it. the documentation sucks, i hate the templating engine, i hate the routing with regular expressions, and i hate subclassing things that is impossible to find the code for the master class.

ruby/rails seems like just what it is: a way to make building web applications as fun as can be and there is an army of people that have contributed to that and from everything i can see, they have succeeded and i want to learn how to use it.

<comment><USER2> Then learn how to use it--it's unclear to me what the issue is.

(Noting that Rails plugins are much the same--some work, some don't, some are maintained well, some aren't, version conflicts, etc.)

Regarding "finding the code" \-- Rails is much, much worse in that regard. There is a lot of magic, and functionality can be difficult to locate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You should always be learning something new. If this is what peaks your interest, do it. In a month come back and see if you want to make the switch professionally (assuming this is your day job). The worst that'll happen is you'll know something new.

</comment><comment><USER4> Learn learn learn learn learn, dont stick to one thing for too long. Branch out, experiment, try new things.</comment>


Why I do not want to work at Google - <AUTHOR> http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000938.html <comment><USER4> 49 comments in 5 hours and almost all of them talk about the technical aspects or about working at Google.

This is about more than that, it's about decentralization as a way to empower people so that in the end we don't need centralized companies or governments to control our data.

Apple (and other companies) control what you're allowed to download. Google (and other companies) control what emails get through to you and your email history. Microsoft (and other companies) control your hardware.

He forgot to mention the larger and more disturbing point; many of these companies are American and so they're under the jurisdiction of the NSA and FBI (and CIA if you're not from around there). With centralization, law enforcement has easy and direct access to things. The only barrier is a warrant and even that isn't a barrier as we saw in the AT&T NSA wiretapping case.

He wouldn't want to work at Google or many other companies because they're pushing for centralization which brings certain political/social effects that he dislikes.

So can we please have a discussion about the political and social implications of decentralization vs centralizaton rather than the technical aspects??

<comment><USER5> Exactly. Or, as the author puts it:

 _I imagine a different future, where if Alice wants to talk to Bob and Bob wants to talk to Alice, there's no unaccountable intermediary that can interfere with their communication, whether they're speaking text, or video, or 3-D models, or simulation._

I never thought I'd live in a society where the value of privacy or anonymity was up for debate. These are real world concepts that I thought everyone took for granted in their routine communications, but are being tossed aside on the Internet merely because finding a technical solution seems too hard (and it _is_ very, very hard).

Maybe we should reframe the debate around the concept of _intimacy_ instead. There are a lot of activities that are perfectly innocent, but I still wouldn't want to do them in a crowded room or in my boss's office. The Internet is becoming the primary medium of electronic communication. I should be able to use it to have an intimate discussion without it being data mined by anyone. There's no reason any third party should be able to detect the conversation is even taking place, and anonymity should be at my discretion, subject to the acceptance of the party I'm communicating with.

<comment><USER6> I can appreciate that thought, but I think you are overlooking that we are moving from the primary medium of the telephone for these types of communications. Telephones certainly weren't anonymous, or undetectable. In fact when they first started they weren't even private but quasi public (to the operator and others on the party line).

I'm not arguing with the ideal, just pointing out that we didn't transition straight from face to face, anonymous and undetectable to the internet. We passed through the telephone phase, which last many decades, and arguably had less tools available to do what you wanted. Internet communication is an outgrowth of the telephone and its network, but arguably with some work is able to provide more of what you want.

Your home phone was the equivalent of a gmail address. A pay phone was closer to a home email server, or an anonymous internet cafe web browsing session. If its shocking that this debate isn't larger about web decentralization, it should be doubly shocking that it never seemed to occur at all, so far as I can tell, during the phone age.

But regardless, your ISP will always be present, and your packets will always traverse many dozens of pieces of networking equipment, owned by several dozen big faceless institutions, along the way. Services can be eliminated, the network cannot. True point to point communication in the manner the OP and yourself seem to want truly requires point to point communication. Maybe we need some innovation in the ham radio space.

<comment><USER7> Encrypting or even obscuring communications on the amateur radio bands is illegal.

<comment><USER8> How many people have ever been prosecuted for that, though?

Walking across the street when the light is red is illegal. But everyone does it anyway, and "the law" does not seem to care much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's the issue. No one cares. Well, _I_ care, and presumably a number of other readers care, but compared to the total sum of internet users we're just a rounding error.

You know why people are using services like Gmail? Because it _just works_. Have you ever tried setting up your own mail server? I like to think that I'm pretty damn skilled with "the computer" but after a day of tweaking I'm _still_ not sure mine is operating properly.

The sad fact is that being idealistic is not enough. You have to be idealistic and _better than the bad guys_. If you offer people a system that is hard to use, wastes their time, and/or is simply inferior to other options, no one will ever use it no matter how idealistically pure it is. Then you just sound like an asshole when you say "you're all morally inferior for refusing to degrade your experience."

So. Fix your system. Make it better than what we currently have. _Then_ come back and convince me to care (hint: if your solution involves end-users installing and maintaining multiple servers, you're doing it wrong).

<comment><USER10> To be fair, the author (appears to) work for Canonical who has had success working to make idealistic software more approachable. So it appears to me that he isn't some Ivory Tower FOSS advocate, and is merely stating a personal preference.

<comment><USER11> I do not now work for and never have worked for Canonical Software, although they tried to buy our domain early on, and they're good folks.

I recuse myself from the question of whether I am or am not an ivory-tower FOSS advocate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's heartening to see so much interest in my little post; it was quite a surprise to come home from a weekend traveling around to dance contact improv and discover hundreds of comments waiting for me.

It's disappointing that so many of the comments focus on one or another point about why things are the way they are: spam filtering is hard and benefits from secrecy from spammers, centralized software is currently more usable, etc. My post was about values, about what kind of a world we can be building, not about which tactics are expedient in the world we currently live in. People with the same values can get together to discuss what tactics to use to advance their goals, but it's no use in suggesting to me that I should use a tactic that advances goals I oppose because that tactic is more expedient!

</comment><comment><USER12> I do understand that the mail post is about why he doesn't want to work at Google and not about demonizing Google. Yet, what still strikes me odd is that many people feel like Google and other big companies should act the way they want.

"Their "real names" policy on Google+ is one example; it makes it likely that only people who feel they have no repercussions to fear from anyone, ever, will write there."

And that is fine in my opinion. Not everybody needs to be on the Google+. It's their playground, let them run it the way they want.

<comment><USER13> It is not that simple. Big companies have an impact on society and culture, that cannot and should not be ignored.

Much like there are systems in place to protect the market from companies (or more accurately itself), it needs to be considered if that impact is negative, if such a negative impact is somehow encouraged (like monopolies) and if so what can be done about it.

Democracy works because we assume that communication can be done freely and anonymously. If these assumptions don't hold true for major communication platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ we do have a significant problem.

The fact that you don't have to join these platforms becomes irrelevant if the societal impact extends beyond them or not-joining prevents you from communicating with others in society.

<comment><USER14> I think this misses the wider point. Google are basically saying: "we can't guarantee your anonymity so we won't pretend we can".

By enforcing a real name policy they are sending a message to those that need real anonymity: use a system designed from the ground up to give you privacy.

<comment><USER15> Anonymity and pseudonymity are two orthogonal concepts. Google could easily offer pseudonymity without making any sort of offer of anonymity. Arguing against pseudonyms with "We can't guarantee your anonymity" is nothing but a straw man.

<comment><USER16> I don't think the everyman views them as separate concepts.

People honestly believe that if you're using a pen name, then you're anonymous to those who you haven't told your real name to. Note even the terminology used here "Real Name", as in anything that isn't your government ID name is not actually a name. Pseudonyms in formal language are 'names', but not so in informal language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's a lot of interesting grey area between surrendering everything to Google and rolling your own mail server. I unplugged from Google this month but I'd still rather pay a little money to fastmail.fm, for instance, than fight spam myself.

The net isn't the wild west anymore but it doesn't have to be a sterile walled garden either.

<comment><USER18> Fastmail, exactly what I did this month. I'd already had an account on hot standby (it's cheap), I just changed my mail forwarding to fastmail.

I think it's a reasonable practice to spread your services around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This guy really should go work for Google and figure out the problems they need to deal with running a service like Gmail. Even for just a little while.

At work we had a researcher from Yahoo Mail come in and give a presentation on the machine learning techniques they use to try and stop spammers abusing their mail servers. It was eye-opening to learn just what kind of hourly battle they face to keep spam out of their systems and the ways they are trying to combat it. It was even more enlightening when the presenter told stories about the problems that machine learning can't solve - like people within the company being bribed to whitelist spam companies based in Vegas.

On the surface it's such a simple problem, and I'm sure anyone who's tried to prevent their web application's outgoing mail being marked as spam by the evil corporations of Yahoo and Google will have had the desire to go write a blog post saying what a crock of shit the whole thing is and how they would never take part in that. But here's the thing - those systems are in place because if they weren't, email would be a completely useless form of communication at this point.

The people sending spam make _millions_ of dollars abusing a system which is popular because its open and based on trust. That kind of money combined with greed gives people all different levels of drive and incentive to get their emails about bigger penises and viagra through to your inbox. Every time they prevent one form of attack, these guys will create a new one.

To do this they do things like install mail servers on unsuspecting user's machines, specifically targeting Yahoo/Hotmail/Google users because their IP will obviously need to be trusted by those companies. They will also hack into other people's private mail servers. They will spoof email headers and pretend they're someone else. They will hire people, experts, who will find new ways of breaking in to servers they detect as having mail servers running on them. All this just to get past the spam filters and prevention that make email a useful form of communication to begin with.

And let's forget the people who couldn't set up their own mail server for just a second. I like to think I know what I'm doing. After installing Postfix and jumping through all the hoops to get my emails whitelisted by Gmail and making sure I didn't have an open relay on my mail server, you know what happened? Someone managed to hack in by brute force anyway. I only noticed because of the _millions_ of automated replies that were coming in every day from dead email accounts or people that were out of office.

Now, I could have worked hard to fight this. I could have did something other than changing my passwords and hoping they didn't get crack them again. But the point is - I only ran a mailserver to get email delivered to me on my personal domain. I didn't want to have to fight and battle and dedicate myself to solving this problem. I wanted to take this thing for granted. I just wanted to send and receive email. Instead bad people could not only sit there and read all my incoming mail - but they could use my server to spam people and get me blacklisted and blocked from so many other services I worked so hard to be trusted by. And they did all this without even specifically targeting me. I was a statistic to them, someone who simply didn't know what they know. In the end, I moved my personal mail account to Google Apps, free of charge. Problem solved.

By using Gmail or Yahoo Mail or Hotmail - you are almost definitely more secure than setting up your own mailserver. You have people paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year working full time to make sure your data is secure. I mean if privacy is your reason not to use Gmail, then I hope for your sake your mail server is secure. Maybe you think it is. I know I did too.

And all these people complaining about advertisements based on the content of their emails. Yahoo Mail had a team of like 30 people just doing _research_ on how to stop spammers. Then all these other people working on support. How does that service get provided to us _free of charge_ without advertisements or some sort of monetisation? I know in some people's heads they think it's literally just a Bayesian classifier and some hand-coded rules, but it's so beyond that.

And of course, let's not forget the fact that a lot of people would not be able to set up their own mail server anyway. Maybe you don't need them, but Hotmail, Gmail and Yahoo Mail enable hundreds of millions of people to communicate _for free_ with other people around the world that otherwise wouldn't be technically competent enough to buy a domain name and set up a local mail server. It lets you communicate with them too, because they don't get frustrated wading through hundreds of spam emails just to read the good stuff.

And that system only works because we have good guys that are fighting the bad guys who want to ruin it for the rest of us. And this is just the one example of email. Which has all this decentralised and open properties that you desire. I am reminded of Diaspora when they released a first beta of their code and it got absolutely torn to shreds for security reasons, and we haven't heard much since.

The real world sucks.

That's why I think it might be a good idea for you to go work for Google.

<comment><USER20> Your solution to admin incompetence is for a centralized service to eliminate the admin. Why can't the service just provide competence? If dozens are people are working round the clock to eliminate spam for your _free_ mail service, why can't they package that and let you control your own data?

The centralized solution you've proposed carried to it's fullest extent is basically eliminating email altogether, where a small cabal of whitelisted services are only able to pass messages to each other. If spam detection software must remain secretive and proprietary at these big companies, this is basically a capitulation to the spammers.

<comment><USER19> One:

The anti-spam systems work because they are based on content of emails and properties across the providers entire user-base. Every time you click "Mark as spam" you are contributing data for all users in the service. In a decentralised service, even if people agreed to submit all their emails and information for the greater good (which they probably wouldn't), the data still needs to be centralised somewhere and secured by experts. The blacklist/whitelist of notorious spammers and servers needs to be maintained somewhere. You end up having a committee to do that, an elected/trusted group of people and they need to deal with appeals, etc.

Two:

If the logic for blocking spam were public, don't you think that would make it much easier for spammers to circumvent?

Edit - I can't reply to the user below. Must be some HN feature. But the logic for accepting an email is essentially a decision tree, it is based on data and evolves over time. It is a very different problem from something like encryption.

<comment><USER21> One makes lots of sense. Two makes none.

By analogy: "the logic for encrypted two-way communication (e.g. RSA) is public, don't you think that makes it much easier for hackers to intercept your credit card details?".

Enough has been said about security - or spam filtering in this case - <USER2> obscurity.

<comment><USER22> If you can propose a spam-filtering algorithm which would not be circumvented if its exact implementation were known, I'd seriously love to hear it. That would basically be a magic bullet for all spam.

<comment><USER23> Spam filtering is a wicked problem. The solutions are contextual, and there's no one single tool that will slay the dragon.

That said, a great many anti-spam solutions work by well-known and publicly available methods. DKIM (header signing) actually utilizes PKI. DNSBLs are publicly queryable (in some cases the zonefiles may be downloaded), Bayesian and rules-based filters are also generally available.

The real challenges are:

1\. Spam is cheap. Spam mail outnumbers ham (non-spam mail) by 100:1 or better. There's a lot of it.

2\. Distinguishing spam from ham is contextual, and people's contexts differ.

3\. False positives are expensive. Wrongly classifying ham as spam carries far worse consequences than wrongly classifying spam as ham (false negatives). Filters must skew to permissive.

4\. There's little central agreement on methods, there are many old systems in existence. We've seen a few small advances (DKIM, SPF) in the past decade, but brute-force content filtering is still required.

5\. Even well-established strong verification tools are too technically advanced for the vast majority of the userbase, and/or are unappealing to others. PGP MIME-encoded email signatures (strong cryptographic identity verification) dates to 1991, fer crissakes! Getting even corporate-supported users to employ this properly is at best difficult (though it's becoming ever so slightly more common largely due to compliance requirements). For others, repudiability is important.

6\. It's an arms race. Spammers change methods (many based on automated tools assuring rapid widespread adoption of new methods) based on new anti-spam methods.

7\. Client and server (MUA/MTA) support for tools which would facilitate whitelisting of users and mail peers is difficult. Centralizing mail gateways can complicate the issue if those core gateways emit proportionately high levels of spam (I see or have seen middlin' amounts of spam from Hotmail, Yahoo, GMail, AOL, and other large email service providers, though generally they're pretty good).

That said: whitelisting, reputation systems (sender, server, DKIM, SPF), authentication (DKIM, PGP), contextual (Bayesian), and rules-based (e.g.: SpamAssassin) properly used do make the situation tenable. But this requires extensive support largely for the administrator of an email gateway. End-users may be forgiven for thinking spam is a "solved problem", though at their level it largely is.

What ultimately will solve the email spam problem will be for email to be superseded by another communications channel (SMS, weblogs, social sites, etc.) to the extent that spammers focus their energies there. It's an economic problem, and if the economics fail to support spamming, the (smart) spammers will move elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> >If Alice's email gets marked as spam, Bob ought to be able to find out why — and fix it!

While Gmail doesn't exactly let you figure out why, you can nevertheless fix it. That's what the Not Spam action is for. I've had mail land in the spam folder that shouldn't have, it only took a few 'not spam' actions to retrain it to let it through again. You're also free to backup your Gmail through both imap and pop. I never got the Gmail paranoia--the worst they do from my perspective is possibly deep-analyzing my emails in an effort to better serve me ads. They possibly sell the data to others (though I've seen no evidence of this) for them to serve me better ads. All these ads I don't ever see anyway because I use AdBlock Plus making their efforts pointless for my account.

I'm not a fan of the rhetorical conflation of decentralized computing with democracy. His other material I don't really want to comment on.

<comment><USER15> Do you know if Not Spam works locally or globally? Assume I'm emailing Alice and Bob and get flagged as spam. Alice checks her spam folder every day and keeps flagging my mails as not spam. Bob just assumes Google's spam filter works and has never looked in his spam folder. Will my emails eventually get through to both Alice and Bob or just to Alice?

<comment><USER24> I'd bet with fairly high odds (and hope) Gmail whitelists locally. If Alice thinks your mails aren't spam but Bob _does_ , I would want Alice to get your mails normally but Bob to be able to keep ignoring you, implying a need for local blacklists and whitelists with a reasonable set of defaults. If Alice + some large number of others think you're alright, maybe you'll be promoted to not being flagged as spam by default. Bob might then just have to take the action of marking your things as spam to invoke a (hopefully) local spam/blacklist rule.

<comment><USER25> There are a few functions which whitelist locally like adding someone to your contacts. But I think "Not Spam" moves it to the inbox and provides feedback into the voting algorithm without whitelisting at any scope.

<comment><USER26> That's what i think/guess/glean from the gmail blog posts too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So far the "real name" policy is the only major, undemocratic, incident that I've seen from a centralized online service. Does anyone know of any other incidents that make case against centralized servers?

Nonetheless, I agree with him that we need to make decentralized computing practical. The best example I've seen of this is Opera Unite: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivshJ-qyg5w>

There is also Freenet, but so far (from reading their mailing lists) they are discussing about changing their load management. I've tried Freenet and it slows down my machine (not very practical), but it is the only software project I've seen that distributes the hosting of digital content among peers instead of a centralized server: <http://freenetproject.org/>

<comment><USER4> _So far the "real name" policy is the only major, undemocratic, incident that I've seen from a centralized online service. Does anyone know of any other incidents that make case against centralized servers?_

Easy access for law enforcement, easy access for the NSA, CIA, FBI, everyone else. The attack on Gmail by Chinese hackers used the interface that Google provides to law enforcement to use. There's also the commercial access part. Some companies sell their centralized databases to 3rd parties.

About freenet; it encrypts all network traffic so that no one else knows what is being transferred. That causes quite a bit of a slowdown. Also, it's Java and on some machines it can use up a lot of RAM, especially on older machines.

The alternative is encrypting your emails and letting GMail store that. The problem with that is that they still know when you sent an email, and who you sent it to. Just the fact that your email is encrypted can be taken as sign of guilt by law enforcement. But it's still an option.

<comment><USER28> > The alternative is encrypting your emails and letting GMail store that. The > problem with that is that they still know when you sent an email, and who > you sent it to. Just the fact that your email is encrypted can be taken as > sign of guilt by law enforcement.

Does this actually have precedent?

<comment><USER4> Not sure but thinking back to those Chinese hackers they might be interested in knowing who's talking to who.

It's also useful for anyone who wants to smear someone else. "Oh politician so-and-so is talking to such a person in secret, I wonder what they're saying".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Yeah - I'm not a fan of centralisation either, but what this article misses is that the most important thing enabled by the internet is not blocked by any of Google's practices.

What is the most important thing? In my view - it enables the formation of "Super Groups" - which I think will represent the most significant cultural change since the dawn of language.

All you need for the formation of super groups are sufficiently cheap and efficient signalling processes. Google has perhaps contributed to this drop in signalling costs as much any company on the internet.

Anyhoo - for those who want to know what a super group is - I wrote about it here:

[https://plus.google.com/117405082753493075236/posts/K4fzCvSc...](https://plus.google.com/117405082753493075236/posts/K4fzCvScYcs)

<comment><USER30> "What is the most important thing? In my view - it enables the formation of "Super Groups" - which I think will represent the most significant cultural change since the dawn of language."

Errr ?!

That's why religion always wins. Makes people believe such things.

<comment><USER29> Maybe you should try a little harder to engage with the idea before chastising it as religion.

<comment><USER26> @grovulent: I am willing to engage the idea. But the amount of suppression(of contradictions) your referred post demands is too high(that i did not finish it). I believe it was the same for the other poster. May be you can express it differently and post again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I love the fact that he has his own mailing list instead of a blog. The internet continues to surprise me every day.

<comment><USER32> The reason it's a mailing list:

[http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/2010-March/0...](http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/2010-March/000910.html)

Also touches on the discoverability problems with using mailing lists like this. I wish I'd been reading this list thirteen years ago when it was started.

<comment><USER28> One of the reasons is:

> I want my list mail to serve as prior art to stop obvious patents from being > granted, or to revoke them or the obvious claims in them in court

Do discussions of ideas really count as prior art, or must there also be at least an effort of implementation ("reduction to practice" according to wikipedia[1])?

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art>

<comment><USER11> In theory, yes; if the invention is "known or used by others in this country [the US]" prior to the date of the invention by the patenting inventor, it counts as prior art.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000102---- 000...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000102----000-.html)

It's tricky, though, because that's the invention date, not the filing date, and the "inventor" could lie about the date of the invention. The safest approach is to publish my ideas in print in a foreign country, ideally in a small print run in a language spoken by nobody at Intellectual Ventures, and then wait a year before posting to the list.

Prior art does not have to include a reduction to practice; conception of the invention is sufficient. Lore has it that Charles Hall's waterbed patent was narrowed substantially by a reference to _Stranger in a Strange Land_ , which described waterbeds.

<comment><USER33> Serious question, not meant to infer anything --

but if you used a centralized server for your blog, wouldn't the date/time stamp of that server provide the same information as a mail server would?

In other words: wouldn't that file/database entry timestamp (ie: wordpress' time -- just an example/name of a blog not necessarily available at that time) serve the same purpose?

<comment><USER11> Yes — but if an evil person were running a blog like that, they could write posts about other people's inventions and put fake old dates on them. They could also fake the timestamps added by _their_ mail server, but not the timestamps added by the mail servers of their subscribers. So the timestamp wouldn't have as much legal weight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think there's always a balance between something being open and transparent (and possibly free and opensource, as those two things usually, though not always, go hand in hand) and something being closed and proprietary. I personally think having an opensource search engine - where all the rules for SEO are well known, constantly refactored and updated by the community - <USER3> be awesome. Would it be economically viable? Can't tell you that.

</comment><comment><USER35> FWIW I think "Why I do not want to work at Google" originally composed in HN thread <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2728174>

These older posts are also fun [http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/1999-January...](http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/1999-January/000322.html) [http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/2006-Novembe...](http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/2006-November/000841.html)

Doing many things, including filtering spam, is more difficult in a decentralized environment. (It is curious that email, itself decentralized, has come to be dominated by several large service providers; I wonder how much of this is due to economies of scale for fighting spam and other attacks relative to other economies of scale relative to things not characterizable as an economy of scale? Search of documents published in a decentralized manner on the web is another example.) Many things are even easier in a completely centralized manner, thus G+, Facebook, Twitter, and their morbid predecessors. For all their issues, architecturally decentralized email, web, and internet are much more valuable than the 2011 versions of AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy silos. So thank you to all working on making the next bits of decentralized architecture _work_. I imagine it is possible to do a bit of this work at Google et al, but it is clearly way, way down the priority list of any such companies.

<comment><USER11> That is correct. Thanks for pointing that out, Mike. I probably should have linked to that in my post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Google wants you to keep your mail in Gmail instead of on your home computer

Offline Gmail is cool.

"Mail Settings" (gear in top right corner) -> "Offline"

Doesn't work in all browsers since Google Gears was deprecated in the newest versions of Chrome and Firefox, but it's only a minor hassle to run an earlier version of Firefox for the offline mode and syncing.

Very helpful to me and quite easy/convenient to set up, even with the recent Gears deprecation.

<comment><USER37> Yeah gears is gone. They have just launched a new version for chrome which is quite good.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejidjjhkpiempkbhmp...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ejidjjhkpiempkbhmpbfngldlkglhimk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> 'Apple wants to relegate websites to second-class status on their popular computers, and exercises viewpoint censorship on what "apps" they allow in their "app store".'

It was originally intended that you would make web apps to access on the IPhone and they did not want developers making apps for it. Consumers and developers demanded that feature so you got what you wished for. (not you per se)

</comment><comment><USER39> Every time I see one of these "Why I don't want to work at Google" articles I think to myself, "Don't worry, they don't want you to work there either."

<comment><USER11> Uh, thanks. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Much of Kragen's vision for the future is in line with where I think our world is heading.

It actually inspired me to draft up a blog post: [http://blog.matthewghudson.com/post/9497957290/the-public- an...](http://blog.matthewghudson.com/post/9497957290/the-public-and-its- problems)

<comment><USER11> Thank you! That makes me happy.

Don't forget that the future is yet unwritten, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Why do you have gmail.com listed for the canonical.org SPF record?

"v=spf1 a mx include:gmail.com ~all"

Might be a reason your emails end up in spam at gmail. Although a and mx would cover it I would also add:

ip4:126.96.36.199 a:canonical.org

If you use gmail to send mail the SPF should be: include:aspmx.googlemail.com or include:_spf.google.com

<comment><USER11> > Why do you have gmail.com listed for the canonical.org SPF record?

As you guessed, some people at canonical.org send email from Gmail. We actually added the SPF record hoping it would _help_ with the reputation problem.

> If you use gmail to send mail the SPF should be: > include:aspmx.googlemail.com or include:_spf.google.com

Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Isn't This part of problem freedom box want to solve?

<comment><USER43> My frustration with the freedom box is that the way they pitch it, it will only appeal to the nerdiest nerds. I think it's an awesome idea, but for it to make any impact it has to have better packaging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I think there is a fair bit of difference between 'closed' centralized control in the form of apple / facebook, which is generally proprietary and secretive, compared to the 'open' centralization that google espouses ... they are one of the great proponents of open source ... their android OS for example is open source. Given that, I probably still wouldn't want to work for them though, from what I've heard theres a lot of c++ coding at 1am in the morning. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER45> Then don't

</comment><comment><USER46> "Apple wants to relegate websites to second-class status on their popular computers,"

Does he realize that Apple computer has been around a lot longer than the internet? And that they've been making an OS with applications on it a lot longer than there was a web browser? So maybe that's actually what Apple DOES and does well?

<comment><USER47> I think it was just an example of companies changing the web for the worse little by little, that was the point of the article.

And to be honest, I share his feelings. The web is getting more and more closed with "The Big Four" reigning.

But it is ironic that there was a lot of backlash when Apple announced there were going to be only Web apps back then that caused them to release the SDK and App Store: [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iPhone-to- Support-...](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/11iPhone-to-Support- Third-Party-Web-2-0-Applications.html)

However, at the same time I like the whole "Apps" (AppStore, Steam, Market) concept because it helped create whole businesses. Lots of small people making real money in the age of piracy...

But I digress, this is completely off topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> tl;dr: This guy doesn't want to work for Google because he hosts his own email and Google wants you to store your email in Gmail.

</comment><comment><USER49> He had me right up to the point where he claimed that Jake Appelbaum has made a significant contribution to anything.

</comment><comment><USER50> Kragen is obviously not well informed of how the Internet works regardless of how long he's been online. Or to use one of his piss poor analogies, just because a cat is 20 years old does not mean he knows every cat in the neighborhood. His descriptions of DSL, wireless networking, p2p, network topology, and his guesses about the infrastructure behind major "evil" web sites are about as narrow sighted as a twenty year old feline.

<comment><USER11> I would be delighted to become better informed. Would you like to explain a couple of my errors to me?</comment></comment>


Arraylists in C# with Examples - <AUTHOR> https://www.tutlane.com/tutorial/csharp/csharp-arraylist <comment><USER2> It's a little weird going back into old .net code and seeing this pre-generics stuff. Fortunately it is mostly extinct, but there are still some odd places where you see System.Object still rearing its ugly head.</comment>


After One Tweet to Trump This Man Got $69M from New York for Ventilators - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/rosalindadams/after-one-tweet-to-president-trump-this-man-got-69-million <comment><AUTHOR> And NY never saw a single ventilator from him.</comment>


Ask HN: Review my new webapp - <AUTHOR>

http://limitedlist.com/
It's a webapp for making community ranked lists.
I've been working on this for the past 4 weeks or so. It was supposed to be a weekend hack, but I kept on wanting to 'polish' it and it turned out to have a lot more features than a MVP calls for...
Any advice, critiques on design or content or business would be super great. Thanks!
Some example lists that HN might find relevant: http://limitedlist.com/list/preferred-pastebin <comment><USER2> CONSIDERATIONS:

\- <http://limitedlist.com/list> The listing of lists doesn't scale horizontally so the browser needs at least 800px width. This will break a lot of browsers (think mobile). It's obvious the designer like the look of the three-across the page, since it does scale in higher resolutions while maintaining three-across (i.e. three-across is forced). The problem is when you force this, your design breaks on some browsers/devices.

\- Add List Item The initial 'add-list-item' is just an unlabeled textbox, so the first thing I entered was an URL. Needless to say I did it wrong. The first textbox is the 'title' of the item. When trying to correct my mistake via 'edit' I was faced with three unlabeled textboxes. The first (single line) textbox had the URL I had entered. The second (single line) textbox was empty. The third text box was multi-line (I believe this is for comments). The various entry fields _SHOULD_ be labeled. --You're free to expect me to read your mind, but don't be too surprised when I fail. ;-)

\- The home/landing page is very sparse. It's easy to see you were aiming for a 'clean' home page (good), but the problem is most people will have no clue what the site does (bad).

\- popup when adding an item to an existing list When adding an item to an existing list, the tooltip-like popup letting the user know "thankyou and moderators will look at the submission" disappears too quickly. You should make the user 'close' or 'confirm' the popup to be sure it has been read.

\- <http://limitedlist.com/about> The 'about' page does not clearly state what the site is about, how the should be used, or most importantly, why I should want to use it.

\- security/permissions If I create a list, am I the 'moderator' of that list? Can I allow/disallow other users to add items?

\- update notifications If I create a list (or subscribe to a list), can I get an email/sms/IM/twiter/FB/whatever message sent to me every time a new item is added to it (or other change updates)?

\- spreadsheet Other than a pretty interface, what advantage does your app have over a google spreadsheet?

(Yes, I often ask the pointed question above and I probably seem like an ass for it, but it really is an important question to ponder very deeply.)

\- Integration / API If I created/moderated a list and wanted to integrate it into my own page, there's no way to do it. I might want to integrate the list onto a page on my own website, but more seriously, I can see where integrating a managed list on a FB 'home page' or 'fan page' or similar could really be desirable. I'm not a FB user, but even I can see how such integration might make your site/app really take off, and similar could be said for other social 'user-home' services (gmail, yahoo, myspace, youtube, ...).

\- Useful? Though having and Internet based, multi-user list is an interesting concept, I cannot think of what I would use it for? (NOTE: this could be entirely my own fault due to lack of imagination and/or coffee)

COMPLIMENTS:

\- The design is nice and clean.

\- I like your use of drop-shadow.

\- I was _VERY_ pleased to see the 'thumbs-up' icon was not a FB 'like' button.

NOTES: \- If you had hierarchy of lists, you'd essentially be recreating a web directory (see dmoz).

Congratulations on shipping!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your review! It's given me a lot to think about.

>3 across list scaling Yes this is a good point. You consider a horizontal scrollbar breaking right?

>labels Most of the textfields are 'labeled' with the html5 placeholder tag. You should see some text inside the inputs that gives you instructions. I think that was the wrong thing to do overall and will now be investing in better labels and descriptions. Thanks!

>security/permissions Yes, click the edit button on the top of the right sidebar of the list. You'll see all the options there.

>notifications Yes right now you get a private message. You're notified by email whenever you get a private message, assuming you've registered a real user. Right now it doesn't have other modes for messaging, but it's probably a good idea to implement those. Might also be a good idea to skip the private message step.

>spreadsheet What are the voting options on a google spreadsheet? The primary use of limitedlist is rankings as described on the home page. But I think it's easy to miss. >On LimitedList items are rated in a special way. Each person gets 9 points to distribute throughout all the items in a list. He or she can give only a maximum of 5 points to an item. As a result, each person picks favorites, and has additional power to choose runner ups. We add everyone's ratings together to create a ranked list. If google spreadsheets can do this, then I would say focus and interface.

>integration/api Yes totally, so important. I'm working on this. I wonder if it's possible to validate an idea if it's missing such an important part of virality?

>useful? well for me, how this started is I wanted to read a new author I just discovered. But he has many books and they're all highly rated. I just wanted to get the *best book, to make sure that I actually like him. It took me a long time to read all the reviews and figure out which book I wanted to read. I think a list would've made things much easier for me. But that's sort of a one off kind of thing. But this can be used for any toplist situation really. I'll be posting some more hacker related lists to HN.

>compliments Thanks! thank you so very much.

>dmoz not sure about web directory, but it is a slightly different way to organize data.</comment></comment>


Lighter-than-air craft rise again - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120921-lighter-than-air-craft-rises

<comment><USER2> If you try and load this page from the UK, you get:

"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."

O.o

<comment><USER3> This is offtopic but, for precisely this reason I recently bought vpn access to a provider that has severs in all major countries. I'm living in Germany, and here, YouTube is almost unusable because everything music or somehow copyrighted can't be accessed. Also, I like to watch BBC programmes or Hulu, again impossible from here. VPN has been a great investment so far.

<comment><USER4> Name of the said VPN provider please.

<comment><USER5> I used Astrill when I was in China - they are pretty reliable and have server locations across the globe.

Make sure you get a dedicated IP address though.

Edit: Link for the lazy - <https://www.astrill.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The good news is that blimps rely passively on the relationship between their overall density and that of the atmosphere to stay aloft. That's also the bad news.

In some future, more rational society, blimps would be tested for their resistance to a microburst, and if they failed, they would not be allowed to carry passengers. It's not true now, and every famous lighter-than-air disaster except Hindenburg involved the craft being pushed down to the surface entirely out of control.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microburst>

Picture of a microburst: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Microburstnasa.JPG>

<comment><USER7> That's not a picture of a microburst, that's an artists rendering.

<comment><USER6> I would have used "photograph" if I had meant a literal recording of nature. This reminds me of the conversation between an artist and a critic, who complained about his distorted woman on display. He replied, "madam, that's not a woman, it's a picture of a woman."

<comment><USER8> Metonymy!

<comment><USER6> > Metonymy!

Perfect word. It's not an exaggeration to say that most of our conversations about (a given topic) "A" aren't about "A" at all, but its symbolic or metaphysical version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _When the pilot wants to descend, the vehicle needs to be heavier, so the > helium in the main body of the craft is compressed and put into storage > chambers._

Ha, it's an inverted submarine!

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Submersion_and_trimmi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#Submersion_and_trimming)

<comment><USER10> This idea seemed obvious too me. In fact that's how I've assumed blimps worked since I first heard about them.

How would they descend otherwise, release helium and reload before taking off?

<comment><USER6> > How would they descend otherwise, release helium and reload before taking > off?

Too wasteful, and uneconomic. The way they control their buoyancy is by compressing the helium to reduce buoyancy, then later releasing it from a special storage tank to increase buoyancy. BTW this is how submarines control their buoyancy -- they displace water with air in set-aside volumes made available for this purpose, which increases the craft's overall buoyancy. Then, when they want to descend, they recompress the air and allow water back into the set-aside areas.

<comment><USER5> Helium is expensive, and is only going to get more so in the coming decade or so.

They mention that on the descent, they mix outside air with the remaining helium in the ballasts.

Aren't you going to lose a lot of the helium in this process?

Wouldn't it be easier to have a sealed bladder that inflates/deflates with pressure changes?

<comment><USER11> They obviously considered the bladder option when designing the craft, which means that: \- either air and He separate fast and well enough to make it unnecessary; \- or there are big problems which make the bladder impractical. I have no idea what these problems might be.

Anyway you're right: a scientifically literate journalist would probably have explained the rationales behind this non-obvious choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a concept that I find myself continuously in love with. As ahi points out, it comes up every few years and never seems to go anywhere, but something like an airborne luxury craft sounds like a fun vacation. You couldn't have all of the grandness of a cruise ship, but you could find several ways to take recreational advantage of being several thousand feet in the air. For example, a rock climbing wall outside of the ship. And instead of having a ship designed for a 2 week journey, maybe only 3 days (or one day), because there is inherently less room for things like spas and casinos and restaurants.

I also like the transportation focus presented by this article. Perhaps having a useful application (IE retrieving large things that are difficult for helicopters to retrieve) will help to encourage the market for all types of lighter-than-air craft.

Would cruise ships have happened without cargo ships first being designed? My guess is no, because cruise ships largely piggyback off of a technology that is industrially very useful. I do not think that a recreational company would dump so much money into finding ways to make ships more economically feasible. That takes industry, where the need is more obvious, and the potential demand is much easier to predict.

<comment><USER13> The problem with lighter than air craft is that the payload fraction is minimal - you need a big craft to get a fairly small useful load. This problem is worse if you don't use hydrogen.

For comparison, the S-64 Skycrane (a heavy lift helicopter), weighs 19,000lbs, can lift 20,000lbs, and is 70ft long.

The Zeppelin NT, a modern semi-rigid airship, has an unloaded weight of 24,000lbs, is almost 250ft long, but only had a payload capacity of 4,200lbs.

<comment><USER7> The good news is that the time that it can stay aloft is substantially longer than any rotor or prop driven craft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The problem with aircrafts like these is that helium is slowly but surely becoming a scarce resource on Earth. Here's a somewhat related story about scientists speaking out about using it in balloons.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19676639>

We could always use hydrogen, which is even lighter and therefore more efficient than helium. There's just the problem with it being highly flammable.

<comment><USER15> Is hydrogen really that dangerous anymore? I mean, we use bikes that have highly flammable fuel right under your body, surely it's possible to create some safety measures to prevent the hydrogen from catching fire.

Not to mention that Hindenburg wasn't that much of a disaster - of 97 people, 61 survived, which is not bad at all for an airship the size of three 747's (or six if you don't include the wingspan) chockfull of hydrogen.

<comment><USER16> The ignition point of magnesium is fairly high, and its ability to act as a heat spreader further reduces the risk.

To put it simply, you can set off magnesium with a blowtorch. You can set off hydrogen with a _match_.

<comment><USER15> I'm sorry, I don't understand - I was talking about the gas in the tank on motorcycles (which also ignites from a match and it's pretty damn explosive). Also, hydrogen does not ignite without air, just like gasoline.

<comment><USER16> Hah! My mistake. Well, thing is with gasoline, is it isn't actually all that explosive in pure liquid form. Go take a pan with a cup of the stuff outside, light it with a match. No, seriously! It will just sit there and burn, slowly and usually with a lot of soot.

Gasoline _vapor_ is a completely different story, and the reason you think of gasoline as explosive. But, this doesn't generally prove to be a problem, in part because motorcycles (and just about every type of vehicle) have pressure vents so that the tank doesn't become dangerously pressurized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This shows up every few years in credulous magazines like Popular Mechanics and Wired. It is literally vaporware.

<comment><USER18> I was surprised to see the article mention that they'll be going for flight testing later this year, given that the only picture accompanying the article is a rendering. However, if you go to their site, they have photos and videos[1] of working airships. The cabin is tiny though, with room for only the operators (these may be the cargo ships mentioned in the article, rather than passenger vehicles).

[1]: <http://www.aeroscraft.com/#/video/4565658106>

<comment><USER19> There is also a video accompanying the article which shows a BBC reporter interviewing an engineer at the hangar. In the video one can clearly see that at least _some_ rather large airship is well under construction (it's 90m x 27m x 30m, l x w x h). It's frame seems to be finished, and parts of the hull are installed too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I guess the only problem this solves is being able to land on the spot?

Even with compressing the helium to land again, I guess it could be more energy efficient, but it would take forever to reach it's destination. People typically fly in jets because they are fast, not because they are fuel efficient.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder what the costs are to build an airship to the same scale as a commercial airliner. If speed was not a factor and it seated comparable amount of people, but it cost significantly less to build and operated there could be a niche market for the not-in-a-hurry air traveler.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you're in California, you can book a zeppelin tour almost any day -- <http://www.airshipventures.com/>

Unfortunately it's quite expensive starting at $375 for a 45-minute flight.

</comment><comment><USER22> Here is a screenshot of the article. <http://i46.tinypic.com/358du2c.png>

Couldn't get the video unfortunately. I'm in the UK, the VPN I used was Hotspot Shield, it's free.

</comment><comment><USER23> How well does it cope with wind?

</comment><comment><USER24> When I saw the title, I thought they'd figured out a way to make use of something other than helium, but I guess I was wrong. I was thinking maybe they built self-resizing vacuum chambers in order to reduce the weight/volume ratio. Like, there would be two membranes, and between them, supports that can extend or shorten to change the volume of the vacuum-space, and affect the overall density that way.

Does anyone know if this has been done, or if it's at all feasible?

</comment><comment><USER25> _"It's impossible to get into some of the resource rich areas of the world. Ecologically, you can't do it. Areas of the far north, or the Amazon are good examples."_

Oh great, now we can give the final blow to that annoying Nature!

<comment><USER26> Um, the point is, you can get there without building roads and raping the environment. Its supposed to be kinder to Nature.

<comment><USER27> "Resource rich" tends to lead me to believe that the reason we want to get there is to take the resources. Having a road or having a blimp, either way it's not going to be good.

<comment><USER26> Even with a coal mine, the roads do more widespread damage than the actual mine. Oil derricks in Alaska do minimal damage; its the construction, pipeline and roads that do it all.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The "Object of Internet Ridicule" guy is newly selling stories online, FYI. - <AUTHOR> http://rovingtypist.com/

<comment><USER2> Good to see that he is taking advantage of his sour situation. I think I would have broken down if I were to become a subject of internet ridicule. I am so afraid of fame that everything I do, I want to do it low-key.

Take a person born in the early 90's for an example. They are college students now. Mix their newly found freedom with alcohol and high definition cameras in every student's pocket, and what do you get? Embarrassing pictures and videos that could seriously damage anyone's reputation.

Everyone born in the early 90's have a ticking time bomb in their friend's pockets. You never know which of these embarrassing contents will go viral. We live in the era of Reddit and revenge porn. I wonder if in the future we all become more understanding of each other, and learn to never take things at face value.

<comment><AUTHOR> He seemed to have a great understanding of it, very articulate. I'm going to order something from him. Maybe have him read and write about the long Hacker News thread about him and get all meta.</comment></comment>


Happiness and the "expensive-gym-membership effect" - <AUTHOR> http://www.happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2007/07/sometimes-money.html

<comment><USER2> There's an important point hiding in here: the difference between what we want, and what we think we want, and how hard it is in practice to tell the difference.

During the decade I ran my first start-up, I used to think (often) about how nice it would be when I cashed out, and would have time to do all of the things I had been dreaming about: playing my guitar, writing, etc.

When I finally did cash out, and had all the time in the world, I found that the guitar still gathered dust in the corner, and the novel still went unwritten.

It seems the things I thought I wanted to do were different than the things I actually wanted to do, once the obstacles were removed.

<comment><USER3> And that underlines how important it is to live in the present, and not in the future; not to always be forsaking what you want now, for some eternal tomorrow that may never come.</comment></comment>


Facebook says it stored millions of Instagram passwords unencrypted - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2019/4/18/18485528/facebook-instagram-passwords-stored-unencrypted-security-issue <comment><USER2> Good? Passwords should NEVER be encrypted. The correct terminology is 'hashed'.</comment>


Mezzanine, a Django powered CMS, reaches 1.0 - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/django-users/browse_thread/thread/c798413197b6f29b

<comment><USER2> Congrats on the 1.0 release! This looks very polished and a strong contender for the king of the django cms's title.

I've been evaluating Django cms's over the last couple days and have narrowed it down to Mezzanine or django-cms. Would love to hear if anyone (especially developers from either package) has any compelling arguments for one vs the other.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks randlet!

I can't really comment objectively on Django CMS, as I've had no exposure to it. Too busy working on Mezzanine.

I did at one point take at look at their page model, which I imagine in both projects is the heart of the CMS. It was a relative mess compared to Mezzanine's, which has always strictly strived to keep a painstakingly clean code base and design, to make jumping in and hacking on as easy as possible.

I've also seen a lot more complaints from frustrated Django CMS users than I have with Mezzanine, many of those who have come to Mezzanine afterwards and really enjoyed it. But that is most likely a result of Django CMS being much more popular - something Mezzanine has a much harder time achieving without a generic name :-)

But please, take that comparison with a grain of salt. Go ahead and try both!

<comment><USER3> It does looks good. I need a BLOG system and have been working on rewiring django-article module to have the twitter-bootstrap and lot of other modifications. After reading the feature list of MZ, I was ready to make the switch but when I tried it out and saw the system missing the features I needed, I decided to stay with what I got. \- writing article in Textile/Markup/restructured text \- thumbnail generation

side-note: How about a rename to something with django in it? i.e Better Django CMS?

Personally, Mezzanine does not rolls right off my tongue and my brain is just refusing to memorize it.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a third party app that integrates Markdown into Mezzanine: <https://bitbucket.org/onelson/mezzanine-mdown>

Mezzanine also contains automated thumbnailing for any images at the template level: [http://mezzanine.jupo.org/docs/packages.html#mezzanine.core....](http://mezzanine.jupo.org/docs/packages.html#mezzanine.core.templatetags.mezzanine_tags.thumbnail)

Can't help you out with the project name however, sorry :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't really tell if it's possible to start with a plain Django project and then add Mezzanine. I have a project or two that could use a better CMS, but only for a very small subsection of the pages.

The documentation seems to indicate that you really need to start with a Mezzanine project, and then add all your Django bits. It makes a lot of sense for a huge number of sites, but perhaps not so much for the type of projects that are primarily need an easy editor for just a few pages of the overall site.

<comment><USER5> Agree completely. This should be front-and-centre in the documentation. A CMS built on top of Django should, by default, be just another Django reusable app. It shouldn't take over your entire project.

The `mezzanine-project myproject` bootstrapping command should be just an optional shortcut for projects which are completely CMS-based. Which, in my experience, is the minority of projects.

<comment><USER6> Mezzanine provides a platform that allows you to do a lot more than just CMS stuff, so some projects aren't completely CMS-based. The mezzanine-project command just creates a django project that has some settings already configured (installed_apps, middleware, urls, etc...) so you definitely could integrate Mezzanine into an existing project. In reality Mezzanine is a Django reusable app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've done some testing with the previous version of Mezzanine (0.12?) and preferred it to Django-CMS. I preferred mezzanine to django-cms but with this latest version does not contain the css files in the static directory, which leave the populated demo version broken.

I was also unsure how to get (South?) to update to my Postgre db instead of the dev.db.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd suggest going over the Django docs a bit more.

Mezzanine 1.0 makes full use of Django's staticfiles app. With DEBUG enabled, all your static content will be served dynamically from within each app's static directory. Once DEBUG is off, as you'd do for production, you need to run the collectstatic command to move all those files into a single static directory, which you then alias to in your web server's config, be it Apache, NGINX or something else.

<https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/howto/static-files/>

As for your database settings, simply define those in your project's settings module. Mezzanine will create a local_settings module for you with the SQLite settings defined for development. This shouldn't be checked into version control, as it will be different per environment.

[https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/#database...](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/#databases)

If you hit any other things like these, please feel free to post to the mailing list where I and others will be only too happy to guide you.

<http://groups.google.com/group/mezzanine-users>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi Stephen. Congratulations, it looks great. I can't wait to play around with it.

Quick question: have you any idea if it works with django-nonrel or if it could be ported to a non-relational database? I've thought building a CMS on App Engine but I may just try porting one of the Django solutions instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

Using a non-relational store with Mezzanine would be an ambitious task, as Mezzanine makes heavy use of Django's ORM in a relational way.

However I was recently contacted by someone from the App Engine team offering to help ensure Mezzanine deployed smoothly onto it. I mentioned the above and was told that Django is now a first class citizen on App Engine, with relational data supported via "Google Cloud SQL" which is their MySQL offering: <https://developers.google.com/cloud-sql/docs/django>

I haven't gotten around to making sure everything works smoothly, but it's toward the top of my todo list, so if it doesn't deploy cleanly at the moment, it will soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the name. In fact, that's the name I've been kicking around for my CMS :D

Man, what a coincidence.

Now, I shall call it ... "Hot Website Makr"! (without the "e") I'd like to see someone take THAT!

</comment><comment><USER10> Too bad it requires Django 1.3, given the fact that RHEL 6 comes with Django 1.2.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would suggest that if you're using your system's version of Django, you're not doing things optimally. Check out virtualenv for more info: <http://www.virtualenv.org/en/latest/index.html></comment></comment>


Tesla Semi truck unveil set for September - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/852580027178696704 <comment><USER2> I don't understand why people keep expecting them to look like modern trucks. I think in terms of visuals, the movie Logan did a really good job of imagining what a driverless truck could/would/should look like: basically a sled with a container on top.

The movie used them as part of a dystopian future, with an accident caused by one of the trucks' negligence, so let's try not to do that. And I hope we'd be better at clustering them into container "trains" for efficiency instead of seeing them all separated. But in terms of design I see no reason why you'd have a faux cab on the front.

This also answers the battery issue. Why swap batteries when you could just swap sleds. Each sled could carry a container ~100 miles from one charge station to the next. When it gets to a station just park behind the next sled and slide the load from one to the other. New sled can keep going, old sled can recharge while it waits for the next load.

<comment><USER3> They're not releasing a driverless truck unless I'm missing something big? So they'll still need a cab and still look like modern trucks.

<comment><USER2> But they're also not claiming it isn't. ;-)

<comment><USER4> They're strongly implying that they plan to sell the trucks sometime in the next few years, which entails that they aren't self-driving trucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Tesla is trying to compete with the announced Nikolai 1.[1] That's hydrogen- powered, a fuel cell/battery system.

[1] [https://nikolamotor.com/one](https://nikolamotor.com/one)

<comment><USER6> Interesting. When Nikola announced that truck last year it was a Hybrid with a turbine generator and a battery pack. [http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103987_nikola- one-2000-...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103987_nikola-one-2000-hp- natural-gas-electric-semi-truck-announced)

Anyone know when and why they changed their plans?

<comment><USER5> Probably when they found out how much gas turbines cost.

Turbine engines don't seem to get any cheaper below bizjet size, where they cost a quarter million or so. That's why light aircraft are still running on pistons. Ford built a turbine-powered semitrailer truck prototype in 1964.[1] Worked fine, but cost too much.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODsl0-oW0Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODsl0-oW0Q)

<comment><USER7> Don't forget the famous Chrysler turbine car: unit cost across the 55 unit production run estimated to be $386,000 per, in 2016 dollars. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does this guy not have enough he already has his company working on. I'm really looking forward to see how they solved the weight to energy density issue for this.

<comment><USER9> A natural gas fuel cell would probably be the best solution.

<comment><USER10> It seems highly unlikely Elon Musk would've gone for such a solution. I think he would've preferred not to go into semi-trucks at all if it meant he had to make a natural gas hybrid, and he would've just waited until batteries were good enough for semis.

I doubt he'd even combine it with hydrogen, as Nikola says it will, considering how much Musk has been criticizing hydrogen as impractical.

<comment><USER11> Can anyone speak to the hydrogen issue?

I have no background in the topic, but battery tech does seem to be a long- term limitation.

<comment><USER6> Hydrogen atoms are very small and hard to contain. The atoms tend to diffuse into the structure of whatever is containing them and can cause blistering or embrittlement - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> [http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/tesla-stock-may-be-soaring- bu...](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/tesla-stock-may-be-soaring-but-elon- musks-business-model-is-doomed-says-former-gm-vice-chairman-lutz.html)

 _Ducks and awaits massive drop in HN karma_

<comment><USER13> Not sure the CEO of the competition is a great source, especially on these boards. With all the smack Musk has talked about ICEs over the years, I don't expect compliments from GM.

<comment><USER12> Lutz is a brilliant automotive businessman IMO and fought hard to make GM innovative before he retired. He's not some empty suit beancounter

<comment><USER13> > _He 's not some empty suit beancounter_

I agree with you. But there's a _pretty_ heavy burden of proof on any denigration of Tesla around here. That and I think some of the old guard of auto manufacturing would love to stick it to Musk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> also mentioned by Elon

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/852581046625345536](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/852581046625345536)

The next gen roadster is going to be a convertible.

> Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company will unveil its semi-truck in > September.

> The company will also unveil a pick-up truck in 18 to 24 months, Musk said.

I can't imagine they are creating a new frame for a semi truck or pick up truck. I've got to imagine they are going to partner with someone like they did with lotus for their first roadster.

<comment><USER15> I think I remember reading somewhere that the pick-up truck would be based on one of their existing frames.

I would imagine that the new roadster will also share a frame with the Model 3 (assuming it's a different frame from the Model S)

<comment><USER16> I would be very surprised if this was a pick-up truck ala a Chevy Silverado and not a pick-up truck ala the Honda Ridgeline. As in, it will be a cab with a bed, but will be built with a unibody chassis instead of body-on-frame. Independent suspension all around instead of a solid rear axle.

I really can't imagine Telsa trying to compete against the F-150.

\--edit changed "won't be a cab with a bed" to "will be a cab with a bed"

<comment><USER17> He said semi-truck, not pickup truck. Very, very different.

<comment><USER16> You must have missed the part where we're talking about a Tesla pickup truck. Because we're talking about a Tesla pickup truck right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How heavy would one of these suckers be with a battery? Can our infrastructure handle that? Transports do enough damage to the roads as is.

</comment><comment><USER12> 96 Leaf modules in an 'eota' that Manzanita Power Systems are building [https://www.facebook.com/106095429411883/photos/a.1759851290...](https://www.facebook.com/106095429411883/photos/a.175985129089579.36381.106095429411883/1295550293799718/?type=3&theater)

</comment><comment><USER18> investors will probably wish Elon could just stick to one thing and finish it

<comment><USER13> > _investors will probably wish Elon could just stick to one thing and finish > it_

Have you read these threads? There are people _here_ who claim to have invested all their savings into TSLA, and yet seem fairly clueless about the industry in which Tesla competes. The more things that get announced, the more they want in.

Tesla haven't yet proven that they can reliably build a cheap, profitable vehicle at scale, but still people talk about the next one and the next one...

Meanwhile, the Bolt is out, reviews are positive, and HN doesn't talk much about it. Not Elon, I guess.

[http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/bolt- ev/2017/2017-c...](http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/bolt- ev/2017/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-vs-2016-tesla-model-s-60/)

<comment><USER19> I am in the perfect demographic for the Bolt: I am a previous Chevy owner (with a car that ran well for over fourteen years!), I want an electric car, and I'm not afraid of being an early adopter.

I can't buy one.

Chevy doesn't appear to be manufacturing them beyond a handful of review units for magazines like Motor Trend and a small number of end-user sales in states where they need the ZEV Credits. People are unenthusiastic about the Bolt because they're matching Chevy's apparent level of enthusiasm.

The rhetoric around the Bolt ("Chevy did it! They were first at scale with a $35k car!") is arguably even more disconnected from reality than anything people are saying about Tesla. The Model 3 isn't a compliance car that is masquerading as a serious effort. Tesla is planning on selling it nationwide. They didn't restrict pre-orders to California and Oregon. Setting aside the actual cars, these are big differences.

At Chevy's current roll-out pace, my Model 3 pre-order will arrive long before any local Chevy dealerships are willing to sell me a Bolt (while passive- aggressively pushing me towards an internal combustion vehicle the entire time).</comment></comment></comment>


A Spaniard in Samarkand, 1404 (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://resobscura.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-spaniard-in-samarkand-1404.html

<comment><USER2> Res Obscura is an amazing blog that used to consistently publish obscure and amazing things. It's a pity that it didn't have a proper update in over a year.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! Author here - I've been busy finishing my dissertation this past year but I do intend to start updating it again in 2015.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For those of you who can speak Spanish, this guy replicated Clavijo's route by motorbike and he recorded some pretty cool videos of the adventure: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQS7oakJitCbDcGFtHRgg...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQS7oakJitCbDcGFtHRggs- QIJXjICqr_)

</comment><comment><USER4> Gorskys color photos add a new perspective to life in these areas. 1910 in these places would not have been drastically different from life a few centuries earlier. Most of the world still did not have access to the modern technologies of the age.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's a rather new newsletter made from the blog, the link for which is: [http://tinyletter.com/resobscura](http://tinyletter.com/resobscura)</comment>


The New Science of Morality - <AUTHOR> http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge323.html <comment><USER2> As I posted in The Next Social Winter, measuring is difficult and learning to measure complexity is a key factor to avoid catastrophe, from the New Science of Morality Pannel:

Harvard cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher Joshua D. Greene sees our biggest social problems — war, terrorism, the destruction of the environment, etc. — arising from our unwitting tendency to apply paleolithic moral thinking (also known as "common sense") to the complex problems of modern life. Our brains trick us into thinking that we have Moral Truth on our side when in fact we don't, and blind us to important truths that our brains were not designed to appreciate.

Summarizing: we are using Paleolithic moral thinking, that is we are not addressing the real complexity of moral thinking.</comment>


A smart way to make ends meet while developing your own apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.drobnik.com/touch/2010/10/icatalog-framework-brings-digital-catalogs-to-life-on-ipad/ I was in the concept stage of a very similar project, when I came across this project. It's precisely what I was envisioning. I think the model of creating a very broad iOS/Mobile code framework that would allow you to sell/license to specific markets. Creating customized builds of the app for various clients.<p>Anyone else working on something similar? I have 2 or 3 other big markets I think this model would work using this model. <comment><USER2> For the most part, this seemed like an interesting blog post, but toward the end, it came across as a thinly veiled advertisement for this iOS framework. My apologies if I have misconstrued this, but the title is misleading. If you're advertising, say so rather than trying to disguise it.</comment>


Presenting: the Perfect Code Editor - <AUTHOR> http://visualidiot.com/articles/code-editor

<comment><USER2> Hmm, maybe that was to be expected from visualidiot.com? An interesting take idea on how to spin a blog post nonetheless.</comment>


The man who designed your bonus just won the Nobel Prize in Economics - <AUTHOR> http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/the-man-who-designed-your-bonus-just-won-the-nobel-prize-in-economics-20161010-grzaca <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting write-up of the prize-winning research into contract theory and "optimal" incentives.

 _In his first major contribution, Holmström showed what set of performance measures should be part of the contract. His so-called "informativeness principle" basically says that any performance measure which provides additional information about the actions the agent took should be part of the contract.

A striking implication of this is the managers should not be rewarded for luck. An oil company CEO who cannot control the oil price should not get a windfall gain (or loss) from movements in the oil price. The optimal contract should filter that out. To use a topical example, bank CEOs should not benefit from a general rise in the banking sector (say because of interest rates) – their stock options should be indexed to the stock prices of their competitors._

Also: [https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/la...](https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/laureates/2016/advanced-economicsciences2016.pdf)</comment>