Primer on Go Assembly - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/teh-cmc/go-internals/blob/master/chapter1_assembly_primer/README.md <comment><USER2> Go's "pseudo-assembly" is not a plus. Everyone ends up learning _both_ the architecture's assembly and the mapping to Go's pseudo-assembly which isn't actually portable because each architecture has architecture-specific features.

<comment><USER3> Would you say LLVM's pseudo assembly is also not a plus?

<comment><USER4> Perhaps such a thing makes sense when you are a target for languages but not when you are just a language. Instead make sure anything that you can express with your IR can be expressed with the language?

<comment><USER5> It always makes sense. because it is easier to port to new platforms.

A low level IR requires less effort to implement a compiler backend.

In Go's case, it is what makes the reference compiler so easy to cross- compile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A colleague passed this along to me. I've been doing a lot of work in the guts of the Go runtime as part of my work at Wallaroo Labs and while there isn't a ton here yet, what there is was helpful.

The links at the bottom were what I found particularly helpful.

<comment><USER7> Yeah I tried to research Go Assembly ~12 months ago and came up with relatively little. It's great to see this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This 2017 FOSDEM talk is also interesting on this subject: [https://archive.fosdem.org/2017/schedule/event/go_scaling/](https://archive.fosdem.org/2017/schedule/event/go_scaling/) ; albeit it's more on the cryptographic side of things.

</comment><comment><USER9> > 137438953482 actually corresponds to the 10 and 32 4-byte values > concatenated into one 8-byte value

32<<32|10 might be a bit clearer, then...</comment>


Ask HN: AI clubs, meetups or willing to meet in London - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Data science meetup:

<http://data-science.meetup.com/cities/gb/17/london/>

Machine learning meetup:

<http://www.meetup.com/London-Machine-Learning-Meetup/>

There's also a data science hackathon happening this weekend:

<http://musicdatascience.com/music-data-science-hackathon/>

</comment><comment><USER3> The AI community seems somewhat dispersed in the UK. There are pockets of interest, mostly where universities carrying out research in this area reside: I know some of these exist in London and Edinburgh.

Also there's an AI conference taking place in Cambridge later in the year.</comment>


Google Timer - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/search?q=timer&pws=0&hl=en

<comment><USER2> You must be logged in to use a timer? Pass...

Edit: Here's what I see [http://imgur.com/0bA7aJ3](http://imgur.com/0bA7aJ3)

<comment><USER3> You can also use DuckDuckGo:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=timer](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=timer)

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=timer+4+minutes+33+seconds](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=timer+4+minutes+33+seconds)

<comment><USER2> I actually do use DDG prolifically and have come to love all the widgets. I just think its silly for google to demand that you log in to use a glorified egg timer. Why do you _need_ me to log in for that?

<comment><USER4> Presumably they do this because there are other widgets which require login and they haven't bothered to separate the two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can google "timer 4 minutes" or "timer 200 seconds" to get equivalent timers. The reverse also works "3 minute timer" as described by herf. Google bug: "Timer 4:50 minutes" gives you a timer for 450 minutes.

Also "timer 450" gives you a timer for 450 minutes. Oddly "timer 62" does not give you a timer at all.

"timer 6h" gives you a timer for "19h 28m 55s". What?

1a = 2 27 06

1h = 14 26 24

1o = 2 25 56

1p = 2 25 37

1 = 2 24 59

1! = 2 24 04

1@ = 2 23 51

1# = 2 23 36

<comment><USER6> > Google bug: "Timer 4:50 minutes" gives you a timer for 450 minutes.

"timer 4 minutes 50 seconds" works fine.

I think that "4:50 minutes" is not a proper way to specify that time span. It would confuse me as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.google.com/?q=remind+me+to+upvote+this+comment+i...](https://www.google.com/?q=remind+me+to+upvote+this+comment+in+60+minutes) is also useful, and will set it in Google Now, so your phone/tablet/Chromebook/normal computer will all remind you.

Annoyingly you can't do it too soon, (e.g. less than an hour away) - I guess because they are concerned it won't sync in time.

<comment><USER4> Hmm, this doesn't work at all for me. I can see how this would be useful though.

<comment><USER8> Google Now on desktop don't work on others languages than en-US. Same thing with hotword (Ok Google) detection on any screen and when screen off on android.

Disapointing given Google have a pretty good history in the area of providing same features everywhere.

<comment><USER4> Ah, you're right. That seems to be the problem. I added &hl=en to the end of the URL and the timer showed up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I use DuckDuckGo's version of this every morning when I make tea.

<comment><USER10> [http://steep.it/](http://steep.it/)

<comment><USER11> Too bad it uses Flash, especially when it doesn't seem necessary – at all.

<comment><USER12> I was suspecting that it was from old times when audio wasn't supported in browser and you had to rely on Flash. The decompiled code[1] for the swf file[2] hints that sound is being used.

[1] [http://pastie.org/9637758](http://pastie.org/9637758)

[2] [http://steep.it/timer/steep.it.swf](http://steep.it/timer/steep.it.swf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems you can toggle start/stop with "Space". However, there is no mapping for the "Reset" command. You had two buttons, Google! And you failed...

</comment><comment><USER14> This was posted like a year ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6429564](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6429564)

</comment><comment><USER15> well, this blows steep.it/3minutes out of the water for my regular tea timer.

Thanks. I had wondered why Google hadn't added this before.

<comment><USER16> It's been there for a while. I've been typing "timer 15 min" in my Chrome quicksearch for well over a year, according to my browsing history. They just never really did much fanfare about it - this came around the time where Wolfram|alpha was an online sensation because of its smart parsing, IIRC.

<comment> k-mcgrady Yeah this has definitely been around quite a while. I still find it much easier to just open a timer app on my phone. It provides a much nicer UI for selecting a time (scroll wheel) as opposed to typing it. This is handy when at a computer but I could see myself accidentally closing the tab/window and losing my timer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Initial trigger has a noticeable lag until the timer starts. Otherwise, beautiful interface & the full screen feature is pretty neat.

</comment><comment><USER18> Just looks like a regular Google search here.

</comment><comment><USER19> Doesn't seem to work with decimals. I tried "timer 4.5 minutes" and it started at "5h 01m 54s"

</comment><comment><USER20> During your 9-to-5, you should probably take a break/exercise every 50 minutes for 10 minutes

</comment><comment><USER21> how about google stopwatch? I was using a stopwatch the other day to time some complex GUI stuff where I couldn't quickly or easily put a software timer in.

</comment><comment><USER22> Or, Siri for this: "5 minute timer" works great.

<comment><USER23> Or, "Ok Google, set a timer for 5 minutes" on Android

<comment><USER8> Do you get the countdown in that situation? I get an alarm (trying in french but don't think it's the issue).</comment></comment></comment>


Man helped toddler find her parents – smeared online as a predator and fled town - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/27/a-man-helped-a-lost-toddler-find-her-parents-police-say-he-was-smeared-online-as-a-predator-and-fled-town/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-toddler%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ebd4b2a20a5c <comment><USER2> That's not all, the man was assaulted as well:

"One man grabbed the girl and the other man, who is the child's father, punched the man five or six times... The investigating officer noted the victim's face had several cuts and was swollen."

I am more perturbed by the aftermath than the incident, to be honest. The father is unrepentant for his mistake! Faces no consequences for either child neglect or assault! And the man isn't even pressing charges, probably because he's had enough of this whole thing and just wants it to go away.

This attitude will hurt children in the long run. We are killing the last vestiges of a sense of collective community responsibility for children. Remember Wang Yue, the Chinese toddler who bled out in the street as adults simply stepped around her? Is that what we want America to turn into?

</comment><comment><USER3> People are so insane about their kids, we have learned to value extreme suspicion towards adults anywhere children are concerned.

Personally I try to physically stay away from kids when I'm out, because I'm paranoid about what they will do to themselves that will get blamed on whoever's nearby.</comment>


Unprecedented Facebook URLs Dataset Now Available for Academic Research - <AUTHOR> https://socialscience.one/blog/unprecedented-facebook-urls-dataset-now-available-research-through-social-science-one <comment><USER2> On the fiasco of this project and its usage of differential privacy: [https://medium.com/@francis_49362/dear-differential- privacy-...](https://medium.com/@francis_49362/dear-differential-privacy-put- up-or-shut-up-48ff255ec35)

<comment><USER3> > A guarantee of privacy is absolutely meaningless if the data can't be used > for the intended research.

Breaking privacy-violating "research" sounds like a desirable outcome, especially when we're talking about Facebook.</comment></comment>


The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz [video] - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/details/TheInternetsOwnBoyTheStoryOfAaronSwartz <comment><AUTHOR> This is the full 120 minute long documentary. It's a heavy watch, but interesting to both audiences familiar with the background and ones who are not.

In addition to the normal pay per view streaming on vimeo ([https://vimeo.com/ondemand/internetsownboy/94238859](https://vimeo.com/ondemand/internetsownboy/94238859)), this film was also offered at an increased price under CC-By-NC-SA. I purchased a freely licensed copy and have placed it on archive.org allowing anyone to learn from it, share it with others, or build new works out of it without risk of prosecution and without going through US-only paywall.

The official site for the film is at [http://www.takepart.com/internets-own- boy](http://www.takepart.com/internets-own-boy) and the there is a Wikipedia article at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy:_The_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy:_The_Story_of_Aaron_Swartz)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for posting the video on archive.org. Ever since I read [http://boingboing.net/2014/06/19/aaron-swartz-documentary- th...](http://boingboing.net/2014/06/19/aaron-swartz-documentary-the.html), I've been looking for a place to download the CC-licensed video. If I want to send money to the producers of the video, how should I do so? Buy a copy of the video from vimeo?

<comment><USER3> Yes, buying from Vimeo is probably the best way to support Brian and his colleagues.

(I am technically one of the "executive producers" but I don't make any money from it.)

<comment><USER4> I bought the video to support your team. Unfortunately it was geoblocked first and only available in SD. Please change that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The only thing I don't care for in all this is the deification of Swartz, as if he played no part in the dilemma he found himself in. That said, something need to be done about the prosecutors in this country, who overcharge and bend the law in way not intended.

<comment><USER6> The community isn't really deifying Swartz.

What you're seeing is the community making him into a _martyr_.

Martyrdom is a concept that is somewhat foreign or unexpected in American culture. Similar to the delusion that the country is somehow immune to totalitarianism, there exists a common assumption that martyrs, like dictators, only happen "in those other, less free countries".

The very nature of what it means for someone to be a martyr basically guarantees that people will react strongly. This is why they can be a unifying force ("we must ${dangerous_but_important_task} for ${martyr}!"). This is also why the more talented oppressors take steps to prevent martyrs such as having them "disappeared".

I see this situation as similar to the question of what to do with the medical data acquired from the Nazi camps. A good argument can be made for both sides, but in the end we should make use of the resources we have.

So if it takes some "deification" or get the _larger_ community to finally wake up and _do_ something about these prosecutors (and other related people), then I would suggest that any "deification" at least served an important purpose. Given that Swartz spent a lot of time and energy trying to get people to do just that (wake up and actually _fight_ the "big" problems in our society), then... I suspect he would have approved for the same reason.

<comment><USER7> This generation needs better martyrs.

As for waking up the community to do something? Which community? Certainly not this one. This community goes out of their way to elect their own oppressors and justifies the vilifying all those who on the other side prior to any election. Yet they have the gall to turn around and claim they are oppressed? Look, when you willingly, nigh joyfully, watch as they take over your healthcare you cannot then truly expect privacy can you? You cannot suddenly expect that they really care about you do you? Your just one wrong protest away from being in jail.

Hence the term slacktivist, which applies to most of those cheering Aaron on. Never walked a protest line in their life, but ooh they may have downloaded a song they didn't pay for.

<comment><USER8> Yep, clearly, the dumb Americans deserve everything that comes to them. Thank you for sharing your bold insights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I cannot get around the fact that he was offered leniency (6 months in a low security prison) in return for a plea bargain.

He rejected that deal, opting instead for a trial in which prosecutors would have been forced to justify their pursuit of him.

Fair enough - noble and principled if a little foolhardy.

Then he committed suicide.

Given the choice of ending my life or taking 6 months in jail; I know which is the more mentally stable option to take.

<comment><USER10> You are ascribing your own situation to the problem and pretending it is the same.

Everyone thinks they are completely reasonable, but the fact is our brain convinces us we are even when we are not.

Unless you've actually been someone else, how can you know what it is like?

<comment><USER9> Just to be clear; your assertion is that no human being make a reasonable or educated guess about their behaviour in a situation that is unfamiliar?

That is your assertion?...because it is nonsense if it is. As humans we make effective, educated guesses about unfamiliar scenarios all of the time.

I also don't physically need to be charged with wire fraud to know that I would not take my own life over it leaving behind my children. Children, if convicted today, I would be able to see again before Christmas.

However - if you want to get [really] meta over the subject then your logic defeats itself.

 _Unless you have actually been me how can you know that I am not completely accurate in my assessment of myself?_

Your stated position has rendered you unable to disagree with me. Since you are not me.

<comment><USER10> The irony of this complete garble of a comment trying to convince people that we are always reasonable is quite amazing.

Have you done that on purpose?

Anyway, in the off chance you aren't intending to do an awesome display of irony:

\- People can be reasonable, but they are bad at knowing when they are and aren't.

\- Empathy is not applying someones situation to yourself, but instead applying yourself to someones situation (This is non-commutative).

\- Empathy can help reason but is not required by it.

I'm not really suggesting anything controversial so I'm surprised at your adversarial responses. It's almost like we are just stuck in a "Someone is wrong on the internet" loop here.

<comment><USER9> So, ultimately, your assertion is that people cannot make educated guesses about their behaviour in unfamiliar situations?

OK. The world is awash with people receiving a criminal sentencing and then killing themselves. It's unfortunate we don't have _any_ data whatsoever to disprove that...

Well done, Sir. You win the internet today. Aaron Schwarz taking his own life instead of facing a maximum of 6 months in prison is completely normal.

<comment><USER10> > So, ultimately, your assertion is that people cannot make educated guesses > about their behaviour in unfamiliar situations?

I didn't say that at all, but you do love a strawman don't you.

> Aaron Schwarz taking his own life instead of facing a maximum of 6 months in > prison is completely normal.

Plea bargain of 6 months + felony charge was turned down. He was facing ~35 years + felony charge. But don't let the facts stop your rightousness ;-)

> It's unfortunate we don't have any data whatsoever to disprove that...

But we do: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Psychosocial_states](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Psychosocial_states)

You'll note that: Hopelessness, loss of pleasure, depression and anxiousness all increase the likelihood of suicide. It's pretty reasonable for us to assume Aaron was feeling at least one of those. Again, lets not let fact or data get in the way of your "informed" opinion.

<comment><USER9> Oh dear -

1\. Misunderstanding of felony charges are stated and subsequently sentenced. Check.

2\. Misunderstanding of compared suicide rates to criminal sentencing. Check.

3\. Comnplete misreading of my sarcasm reagrding lack of data. Check.

You are just emabrassing yourself, honestly.

You could have every data point in the world suggesting the factors that contribute to suicidal feeling.

None of it proves criminal sentencing results in the normative behaviour of suicide. Again we are returning to common sense, we know that criminals are not killing themselves on masse.

This is getting stupid now. You are clearly not trolling and genuinely think you are on to something.

Suicide is not normal neither is it normal for anyone to kill themselves in response to the potential of being found guilty.

It happens, but it is not normal.

Please feel free to continue arguing. It is interesting to watch someone logically eat their own argument.

<comment><USER10> Please explain 1. He was facing 35 years (if he lost) and would be labeled a felon losing his right to vote and aspirations of working in politics. How is that misunderstood?

Other than being a smug cunt, you haven't actually said anything that refuted what I said. I've given you data and reason to explain why someone would kill themselves in a similar situation but you are caught up on your own definition of normal (being 50.1%) which I also refuted earlier. So I'm going to go with my earlier statement: You are just a smug cunt, and you enjoy it.

I wasn't trolling no, but I was/am clearly being trolled. Well done.

<comment><USER9> Oh dear moody moody moody.

1\. He was facing 6 months for a plea bargain. Several other lawyers have already commented here how felony charges are listed sequentially as maximum sentencing but that is not how years are applied. It is now becoming boring to have to school you.

2\. You have given absolutely fuck all data to support anything of interest. Please provide the data that says people facing a criminal trial have a tendanecy to kill themselves. Let's forget "normal" etc. Just a _tendency_ will be sufficient.

3\. I am smug. I am smug because a prick like you decided to try and nitpick my comment and you embarrased yourself.

4\. I didn't troll. You are just wrong. Suicide is not normal. Schwarz killing himself was not normal. The end.

<comment><USER10> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262831/Revealed- Aar...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262831/Revealed-Aaron-Swartz- prosecutor-drove-hacker-suicide-2008-named-cyber-crime-case.html)

<comment><USER9> You are clearly a moron. Not just wrong but an out and out moron.

Posting a link to a story from the Daily Mail is the argumentative equivalent of shooting yourself in the face.

Widely regarded as the worst newspaper in the United Kingdom. Please don't respond. You are seriously embarrassing yourself.

<comment><USER10> The same information is in the documentary, and wikipedia. And actually happened in real life, regardless of where you source the information from.

<comment><USER9> ...and how has that backed up _anything_ you have said?

I already know Schwarz killed himself. I already know the prosecutor was zealous.

So, either post the aggregated data that shows accused parties kill themselves prior to trial or simply STFU. I am not joking it really is embarrassing for you.

<comment><USER10> > So, either post the aggregated data that shows accused parties kill > themselves prior to trial or simply STFU.

Is that how debate works, you posit a random ultimatum or else discussion over. Interesting, explains a lot though.

Schwartz and James, both killed themselves while under prosecution. James specifically called out the prosecution (and his impending conviction) as the reason for his suicide (in a suicide note).

An honest question, do you think it just random chance that two people facing similar charges by the same prosecutor both killed themselves?

<comment><USER9> I couldn't care if the prosecutor killed them with his bare hands. You disagreed that suicide is abnormal.

Post the data that suggests suicide is normal and stop running from your earlier statements.

<comment><USER10> > You disagreed that suicide is abnormal.

Well that was actually in the other thread, this one I just said you lacked empathy to understand the situation, I've now pointed out someone in exactly the same position made exactly the same choice. So even if you lack empathy, you can understand it just from a logical point of view: "Hmm, pressure from prosecutors can make people kill themselves. Interesting phenomena".

Back to the "normal" arguement: I've posted that in the context of a prosecution that was handing down a sizable sentence (Probably not as high as 35) but not as low as 6 months (which is what you said), Suicide is a fairly understandable outcome. I gave you the links in wikipedia, and showed you two cases where it happened.

Now is normal == understandable?

<comment><USER9> I understand the situation.

The sentence offered was exactly 6 months. So it was quite as low as 6 months. It was 6 months.

Suicide is not an understandable outcome. It was rash, irrational and abnormal. There is nothing more to discuss. You are simply wrong. the best part is, you _know_ it as well. We both know you know it.

You showed me two cases where it happened. I can show you over 100,000 cases this year where it didn't happen. I can show you millions of cases where it didn't happen. I can show you 10's of millions of cases where it didn't happen. Literally, every single prisoner in prison didn't kill themselves.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've just watched this with my roommates, and I think we're in consensus that Aaron's beliefs, to make the Public Domain actually public and universally share information so that we may be push forward the progress of humanity, are undoubtedly correct.

What I would like to know at this time is how to make Aaron's beliefs a reality. What can I do? What can my roommates do? What can anyone do?

Ideally, I also don't think that this is a zero sum game. We can all be winners. I'd like to believe that we can all be winners.

<comment><USER3> Here's one option:

[http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/operation-a...](http://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/operation- asymptote-crowdsources-the-freeing-of-pacer-content/)

[http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/](http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/)

Another is to write to your representatives in Congress demanding accountability for prosecutors and Stephen Heymann in particular. The web forms actually do get tallied by interns and closely monitored by staffers when there's a spike.

<comment><USER11> I appreciate your suggestion, but I feel like there's more to do, and I'd like to do more.

<comment><USER3> I think Aaron would have advocated--as the movie aptly points out--a re- thinking of one's approach to life in a way that involves more political activism than we're typically used to, versus a one-time reaction. There's a wide range of political issues for people to make their voices heard on.

Directly related to Aaron's interests, I'm suing the Courts over PACER and other related issues. See [http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california- northe...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northern- district-court/think-computer-foundation-et-al-v-administrative-office-of-the- united-states-courts-et-al/) , where document 23, the First Amended Complaint, is the main one to read. If anyone wants to file an amicus brief/write a letter to the judge in the case and/or the Administrative Office of the Courts, this would be a good time to do it.

<comment><USER11> You have excellent suggestions. I will try to follow up.

A strategy that I am taking is the promotion of Computer Science education and the use of open source technology. Computer Science needs to be cheaper, easier and more attractive to learn. We need more teachers, better communication between the school and the office, and more girls studying CS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Hackers for right, we are one down, we have lost one of our own." \- TimBL

</comment><comment><USER13> I made a timeline of Swartz' life [http://newslines.org/aaron- swartz/](http://newslines.org/aaron-swartz/) Feel free to update if you see something missing.

<comment><USER14> I assume something's wrong with him attending Stanford in 2000 (or being born in 1986).

He didn't go to college when he was 14/15, did he?

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Some links to relevant legal proceedings / profiles:

USA v. Swartz: [http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/my5tdot8/massachusetts- dist...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/my5tdot8/massachusetts-district- court/usa-v-swartz/)

Stephen P. Heymann: [http://www.plainsite.org/attorneys/united-states- department-...](http://www.plainsite.org/attorneys/united-states-department- of-justice/stephen-p-heymann/)

Think Computer Foundation et al v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts et al: [http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california- northe...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northern- district-court/think-computer-foundation-et-al-v-administrative-office-of-the- united-states-courts-et-al/)

<comment><USER15> "Your activity looks suspicious to us. Please prove that you're human."

<comment><USER3> We get a lot of scraping activity from China, Russia, and Europe. You probably have an IP from somewhere we've seen actual suspicious activity from. Sorry!

<comment><USER10> I get that message from within Australia... we don't even have the bandwidth to scape a website ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Aaron's Law was just recently introduced:

[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2454#overview](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2454#overview)

There is a really great talk by Lessig about the legal issues surrounding the case at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#t=44m39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#t=44m39). After seeing the debate around the movie, this quote really stuck out at me:

"He was a citizen who felt a moral obligation to do what he believed was right. And if he is guilty here it is because he acted on that view of what was right. And we need to act to respect that act of citizenship. To think beyond what Aaron did, to think beyond what was done to him, to think about the ideals he gave everything in his life to, and to make those ideals the law."

</comment><comment><USER17> While i believe in the underlying vision that drove Swartz to his actions, the person that killed Swartz was Swartz himself.

Prosecutors overcharge and bend the law all the time, still we don't see mass suicides from the "victims". Swartz obviously had some other unrelated issues that drove him to this extreme.

<comment><USER10> What is the suicide rate for people facing felony prosecution?

What is their typical socio-economic status? Is that a factor?

My bet is, you don't know the answer to either of those questions, so the "obviously" in your statement is misplaced.

<comment><USER17> Its clear by reading his older articles about his reddit past and such that he had some trouble adjusting to a "normal" live. He did not seem like an emotionally stable person to me, even before his suicide.

<comment><USER10> Your in depth analysis of his emotional state through blog posts?

Exactly what is a "normal" life? and what adjustments are required to achieve it? What kind of trouble did he have with those adjustments?

<comment><USER9> Normal life is not suicide.

I say that as someone who has talked two people out of suicide. Suicide not a normal emotional, biological or mental state for any living creature.

What exactly is wrong with judging someone through a large canon of blog posts?

I am sure you would have no trouble judging the mental state of the Westboro Baptist Church members through their blog posts.

<comment><USER10> So are you making a value judgement or an empirical judgement?

How many people would have to commit suicide (per capita) for it to be considered "normal"? Does the same measure apply to other "fringe" choices in life, Alcohol, drugs, sexuality, etc?

If it isn't based on numbers, then you are just making a value judgement... And if one doesn't share your values, they can simply disagree with you.

<comment><USER9> 50.1% of all living things for it to be biologically normal.

50.1% of human beings for it to be emotionally normal.

But; let's also add your comment is nonsense. I don't need empirical data to state suicide is not normal.

I am a human being, that is alive and capable of reason.

The HN propensity for immediately crying foul at _lack of empirical evidence_ is almost child like.

Are you that incapable of applying reasoned judgement to your daily life?

On another tangent; Why do you think sexuality is a choice? That statement alone shows you are not equipped to discuss the issue with any thing resembling common sense or informed opinion.

You are just tossing out a bunch of arbitrary control questions that mean nothing.

<comment><USER10> Sexuality is a choice, but isn't always, I can choose different forms of it, are you denying that choice? Are you saying because some people can't choose others are not allowed to?

By your definition of "Normal" Black people aren't normal... Nor are white people... erm.. Nor are Indian... or asian... Or christians, or especially not athiests... As there aren't 50.1% of any of them (Compared with the entire species/race). You've reduced "Normal" to "Human"

Or perhaps we could admit, that "Normal" is itself a value judgement, and based on social stigma and culture?

> I am a human being, that is alive and capable of reason.

No, you are clearly a Judeo-christian pushing his "beliefs" on other people pretending it is reason. Suicide is accepted in some cultures (modern and historic). But clearly not yours. And admittedly not Aaron's either, but calling him abnormal for being distressed (and ultimately committing suicide) for being persecuted for something he thought was harmless/for the good, is a strange viewpoint in my mind (just as mine seems strange to you I suspect).

> That statement alone shows you are not equipped to discuss the issue with > any thing resembling common sense or informed opinion.

Well clearly, given I'm arguing that your nebulous concept of 'normal' and 'common sense' are in fact flawed by your own definition.

But hey, it is much easier to dismiss an alternative point of view, than to internalise and understand it.

BTW: You don't have to be such a dick in your responses, just because what someone (myself in this instance) says something you don't agree with, doesn't mean you should attack and belittle them. While I am reaching for some intellectual high ground in this comment, your words were still hurtful.

<comment><USER9> You have misunderstood me. My point was sexuality is _never_ a choice. Acting on impulse is a choice; suffering from impulse is not.

I suggest you go back and re-read what I have written before you embarrass yourself further.

I never brought race into the equation. In order for suicide to be considered the norm it would have be the de facto standard for living organisms. Roughly, 50.1% of all living creatures. I can cite 7 examples that back up my claim - Movement Respiration Sensitivity Growth Reproduction Excretion Nutrition

Common sense also tells us that suicide cannot be normal behaviour otherwise all biological organisms would eventually degrade to 0 lifeforms.

If my words are hurtful it is because time and time again we see posters on HN tossing out absolutely junk statements that they think are well-informed. When pressed they resort to an argumentative form of

 _Present [ALL] evidence [EVER] or I reject reasoned opinions._

Normally the follow us is something along the lines of

*Your [SOURCE/RESEARCH/DATA] is flawed because of [UTTERLY INTANGIBLE REASON].

There comes a time when, as a person and a member of society you have to accept that we are not living in a simulation but that the evidence in front of you is actually satisfactory.

Suicide is not normal. It was ludicrous and silly for you to toss out a random objection to my statement.

<comment><USER9> haha voted down for saying suicide is not normal.

Stay classy HN :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm wondering... has anyone really opened JSTOR and their equivalents to the world yet? appears no.

edit* there is not technology and science resource available for congressmen??? smh...

<comment><USER19> Apparently, everything Aaron downloaded is available at theinfo.org. Nobody has really done anything (apparent) with it. The site is down now, so maybe that is an indication this doc has inspired something in someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can we all be good netizens and torrent rather than overload Archive servers? Not enough seeders right now.

<comment><USER10> torrents feel like they should be part of the browser. It seems odd we rely on ISPs to do local level caching, when we could actually do a lot of it ourselves. (Think how many streams of the world cup are floating around on the internet right now...)

<comment><AUTHOR> Last mile bandwidth tends to be a lot more expensive than more centralized data center bandwidth— moving traffic out to the edge is just not very attractive in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "The Startup Trying to Replace Congress With Software Is Running Two Candidates"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7960110](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7960110)

</comment><comment><USER18> 40 min through is a pretty good tribute to his life, humanity, and values. 10/10 It takes a turn a focus on prosecutorial zeal afterwards. 6/10

<comment><USER22> I had a couple opportunities to talk with him, and being part of the early reddit community, I thought the first 40 mins were a good tribute to who he was.</comment></comment>


The Banner Has Been Unchanged for 18 Years. That's the Issue. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/digital-advertising/ad94724dfff7

<comment><USER2> The author seems to think that there has been "no innovation" in the digital advertising space in 18 years. I'm not so sure I agree with that. I think we've seen numerous innovations. I mean Google built a business around the innovation that was AdWords. There have been other examples like those stupid hover links that block content and text link ads that Google ended up pretty much killing. I agree that these may not be the best things to come but there have been changes. In the mobile space we've seen all kinds of new formats such as dropping and icon on the desktop and push messages (as annoying as they both may be). We've mide strides it's just that no one has really found something that completely replaces banner ads, and then mobile throws a wrench into everything.</comment>


Who is Using Node.js And Why? Yammer, Bocoup, Proxlet and Yahoo - <AUTHOR> http://bostinnovation.com/2011/01/15/who-is-using-node-js-and-why-yammer-bocoup-proxlet-and-yahoo/

<comment><USER2> "We chose node.js for a few reasons. The first was, we simply wanted to play with a new technology."

Well at least he's honest, but this seems like an exceedingly bad reason to choose a technology stack.

<comment><USER3> FYI, ericflo maintains a twitter account whose sole purpose is to covertly mock node.js

<http://twitter.com/nodecore>

It's good to see these Django guys having to use questionable tactics to challenge node.js.

<comment><USER4> my impression of Eric (I don't know him, I've only talked briefly at a couple of conferences) is that if he disagreed with something or thought it had problems, he'd tell you to your face.

I sat in on his speech "Why Django Sucks, and How We Can Fix It" at Djangocon last year:

<http://djangocon.blip.tv/file/4112452/>

And he gave a lot of tough love to Django in front of most of the establishment and people who are hardcore Djangonauts.

Speaking of questionable tactics, why create a HN account just for the express purpose of attacking him?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am interested to see some solutions with Node.js. From my experience (I built a lightweight protocol for multiplayer game with Node.js), it is super easy to program with Node.js and it just works. But the down-side is, you don't really get scalability. Node.js is great in one-process environment, and you don't have any methods for inter-process communication (you can do it based on you tiny protocol, but really, that is not what you want as "inter- process communication" means). Node.js is fast for prototyping, but I am eager to try out Erlang or Go before deployed the current version in production.

<comment><USER6> <shameless plug> try zeromq.node for your interprocess communication needs! </shameless plug>

<comment><USER7> This is actually just what I'm starting to use for inter-process communication with node.js, for a realtime MMO game. I'm dividing the (2d) world into squares, each handled by a node.js process which will each be responsible for all the game logic and computations within that square, with some extra logic for handling objects that span two or more adjacent squares.

All IPC goes through a single (per machine) routing server which handles routing messages to the various node.js processes, which may or may not be on the same physical server. Only communications are for objects around the edges of the squares, for collision detection etc. and for transferring websocket connections to another node.js process.

After a lot of thought, that seems to me to be the best way to work out a scalable solution. Have yet to see if it'll work well, but I see no reason why it shouldn't. Now if only I had enough users to test it..

Oh, and thanks for the great 0MQ library! :)

<comment><USER6> That's awesome. Let me know if you have any problems!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am using Nodejs as an update monitor for a community game. When one person does something, I need to update everyone else. I initially did this with ajax polling back to the server for any updates. While this worked, it seemed slow. Now all I have is a simple nodejs server that accepts web socket connections, and passes information to all connections In total it was about 10 lines of code and it is pretty much real-time.

</comment><comment><USER9> For a ssjs implementation to win my heart this is how I would like to code my apps:

      require session,models,template

      function main(request,response){
        session.start()
        data = models.getEntries()
        html = template.render('blog',data)
        response.write(html)
      }

Can not be simpler, hide all complexities from the coder so he can concentrate on building apps, not fighting with code.

<comment><USER10> You can get close with expressjs

<comment><USER9> I like it, it can be humanized a bit more like:

      var app = express.Application(); // let me create apps, not servers
      app.get('/', app.do('index',req,res));
      app.run();  // set port in config.js

I'll keep an eye on express.

<comment><USER11> I can give express a thumbs up. I came from a python-flask environment, and express provided a way for me to quickly get the gist of javascript object- models and message passing.

(I'm not a CS guy, I just wanted to finish a digital art project involving buses and geolocation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every web developer should check out node.js because of this test framework if nothing else <http://zombie.labnotes.org/>

<comment><USER13> Or the tobi project we released: <https://github.com/LearnBoost/tobi>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've used Node.js to power a little "social doodling" pet project I made: <http://letsdrawit.com> and I find it a useful way to think about concurrency because there are certain types of race conditions you don't have to consider (for example any critical regions in memory)

It's extremely useful for the "evented" part, but I get the sensation of using node for hosting webpages might be overkill and not the appropriate tool. Instead, I've got the node.js core proxied behind an nginx server hosting static files and ruby rack (for when dynamic content is necessary).

Does anyone see an advantage of using Node to host templated webpages?

</comment><comment><USER15> We use Node at Yobongo, and love it. Fantastic for our realtime communication infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER13> A full list of companies: <https://github.com/ry/node/wiki>

</comment><comment><USER16> I use it for my domain name generator: <http://impossibility.org/>

162k searches and counting :)

<comment><USER17> Oh cool, smugsex.com is available.

But seriously, good fast search.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm sorely tempted to use node.js for a project I'm starting now, but my needs require 100% http/s support and its latest release just rebuilt its http/s support.

Since a large portion of our solution is sitting on the browser in extensions, it would be nice to reduce our language footprint by one. If it were a year later, I have no doubt I would.

<comment><USER19> I wouldn't try to shoehorn SSL/TLS in as a requirement of whatever language/framework you do network stuff in--it's unlikely to be a great implementation, anyway. Just put nginx or stunnel in front of your service and go about your business. Both are fantastic proxies for high-load services. We use stunnel -> haproxy -> diesel/python at Bump... and we have a _lot_ of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would like to write a TCP server with node.js can accept 1000s of client connection. Each client would need to publish about 1 timestamp a second to a queue that is unique for the client. That same client would also need to be able to subscribe to one other clients queue, and have that data pushed to it when it get published. The data would not need to persist at all, if there is not a subscriber who wants it discard it.

Any tips on how I should go about doing this? I would like some type of solution that could scale if I put a load balancer in front of it. I have been thinking about using some type of PubSub queue, maybe zeromq, maybe a XMPP server.

<comment><USER21> If you want to load balance this and you need something custom, you're going to be a lot better off starting with Erlang. In Erlang, a PID reference (process ID) can transparently be a reference to a process on another machine in the cluster, so sending a message to the target queue is some variant on Message ! Pid regardless of which machine the queue is actually living on. MNesia can be used to keep track of what PID is what and that transparently replicates around without you having to write the logic. In Node.js it's going to be less transparent and unless there's a library that does all this for you, you're still going to be putting the solution together when you could have been done in Erlang, even if you're an expert in JS and know nothing about Erlang.

One of the queuing libraries might just work out of the box, though. But at least at the moment I would actually consider Node.js counterindicated for this task, unless you can be rigidly sure that messages never have to cross process boundaries.

<comment><USER22> Agreed. This sounds like an ideal learning project for Erlang.

Open a few tabs of erlang.org/doc/, grab a book (Joe Armstrong's Pragmatic book is a good one) and get started.

You'll be surprised how easily you made your first Erlang production system. (If this makes you feel guilty and you need to self-flagellate afterwards you can try packaging your app into a release.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We have used Node.js at my company to build a few small web apps. The decision to try node.js was most likely based on the fact that everyone in the office knows javascript already. The experience has been a little love/hate (at least for me).

Personally, I like the idea of asynchronous IO for writing server applications but I would probably go with a slightly more robust language (for me it would be Haskell).</comment>


Changing Tack: Evolving Attitudes to Open Source - <AUTHOR> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/11/19/open-source-evolution/ <comment><USER2> As a developer I am a little scared from the shift of value from the software to the data...

On the other hand I don't see much success of data company outside the adtech space, is data only valuable for advertising ?

The company that use data not from ads are very few, I can think only at Palatir, which analyzes data don't own it, Netflix and Spotify, whose success I think is more related to the boom of the internet infrastructure than their recommendation engine, and maybe Amazon, which arguably sell at the lowest price on the internet.

Are there company who are extracting direct values from data ?

<comment><USER3> I can think of many applications of data. For example can to improve the learning rate of MOOCs, how to teach effectively, how to detect great performers (for example for hiring), how to meet the kind of people able to inspire others (analyzing cliques in graph of social relations), how to get feedback, how to get a first impression of what products are the market demanding and how much are they going to pay for it, and many others. A gold mine for those that can extract the real value and significance of data, that is data analysts.

<comment><USER2> Sure, there are a lot of application, but are there is any company who is extracting all that value ? Which one ?

Why there aren't more ?</comment></comment></comment>


Appeals court rules journalists can't keep their sources secret - <AUTHOR> http://rt.com/usa/nyt-risen-leak-espionage-336/ <comment><USER2> Freedom of the press protects the right of the press to publish things.

It does not[1] protect any agreements made to secure that publishing. If you guarantee your source anonymity or a million dollars and you later can't deliver because someone emptied the bank account or eavesdropped or a court compelled you to testify, that has nothing to do with your right to publish. It may affect your ability to publish but so do locked doors and I don't see anyone saying freedom of the press should trump trespassing rules.

If bystander Amy is witness to Bob's crime and subpoenaed and under oath she can either tell the court the truth of what happened, perjure herself or not answer and be held in contempt. Freedom of the press, attorney-client and doctor-patient privileges should provide zero protection here.

[1] Generally in the US. Many states have shield laws and protected in various other countries.

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

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER3> It has been held by many courts that the ability to keep sources secret aids in the flow of knowledge to the public and allows the press to function.

Floyd Abrams has an entire chapter on it in "Friend of the Court."

<comment><USER2> It certainly aids in the flow of knowledge to the public but so would a lot of clearly not allowable things like hacking celebrity phones.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I'm not defending illegal acts, but it seems that many cases, _e.g._: Pentagon Papers and Watergate, could have only been done with protected confidential-sources.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure how persuasive that is because those things happened without the claimed protection. The reporter can certainly gain trust by saying he's willing to go to jail to protect the source.

<comment><USER3> It's been pretty persuasive to this point, hence the shield laws that almost all states have put in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _" Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law," Obama said during a May 23 address after those scandals first surfaced._

I find it hard to reconcile that with the Obama administration's attitude to Snowden, Wikileaks, Assange, etc.

<comment><USER5> Now, with Snowden, Obama has charged 8 people under the Espionage Act, whereas it was used only 3 times before his administration.

There is something systemically wrong happening behind closed, classified doors.

<comment><USER6> > happening behind closed, classified doors

My friend who works in the intelligence community assures me that if we only knew the kinds of bad guys they are secretly protecting us from (e.g. another Boston Marathon bombing every week) we'd be thankful. I don't believe him.

The gov't loves to trot out every single foiled terrorist as a victory of their systems. The gov't isn't quietly foiling terrorist attacks left while it's just too humble to say so.

Or maybe there's some reason to keep a foiled attack a secret?

<comment><USER7> > Or maybe there's some reason to keep a foiled attack a secret?

There absolutely would be: SIGINT 101 is that you don't reveal your information gathering abilities, lest your opponnent move to new communications channels. In WW2, the Allies often learned of attacks due to code-breaking, and chose not to reveal them, so as to preserve the long-term strategic value of future intel. (The wartime morality of letting 1,000 die today to ostensibly save 10,000 tomorrow is left as an exercise for the reader.)

I do give our agencies the benefit of the doubt, that there are probably are real threats, and they are probably acting in good faith. But I still find the current scope of spying and databasing to be dangerous, un-American, and inhuman.

Terrorism, as horrible as it is, will always be an improbable statistical outlier. But when state power slides into tyranny, it is pervasive, ongoing, and difficult to undo. Preventing the latter should be our highest priority, or we have failed to learn from history. Something tells me it's a lesson we'll be learning the hard way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jesus christ. I argued for a Bill of Rights while participating in Youth Parliament here in Australia, and used USAs typically strong defence of freedoms as my evidence.

And now all of that has been systematically ignored and weakened over the past few years (of course, it could have always been like this and I just hadn't noticed). It's a dammed shame, and I am no longer excited about possibly moving to Silicon Valley: I don't think I'll move at all anymore.

<comment><USER9> There never was this sort of freedom for journalists. The fact that you think so is just a testament to how easily journalists can spread their messages.

They always wanted there to be such a law, but there isn't and never was.

I am not saying it might not be a good thing for this to be the law, I'm just saying it never existed.

<comment><USER10> You are right, it never did. Yet almost every movie involving scenarios of lawyers and sources has it. As does any TV show and book. It is deeply ingrained in our thought process yet it is wrong (from the point of view their is no such protection). It is kind of amazing when you think about it.

<comment><USER11> You're confusing two different things: lawyers enjoy client-attorney privilege at every level in the US. For this to apply you must be a practicing attorney. Journalists don't enjoy similar protections because they aren't a self- regulating profession (there is no law appointing an entity to regulate journalists, as there is one to create the bar organizations).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Articles about court cases should properly cite the case and link to the decision. For court case that went on for years and involved reams of documents entered into evidence, something's probably gonna get lost in the reduction to a couple paragraph summary. Isn't it weird that nobody reads court documents before railing against the outcome? It's not that hard to read the opinion and dissent, identify the judges' perspectives, and follow their arguments. Even if you have no background in constitutional law or relevant statutes, you can pick it up as you go along.

Anyways, since I can't find the decision I can't really figure out whether I should complain and do nothing about the court or the law.

<comment><USER13> Here's the decision: [http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/sterling- ruling.pdf](http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/sterling-ruling.pdf)

It's 118 pages, have fun.

I found it at [http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/19/fourth-circuit-guts- nat...](http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/19/fourth-circuit-guts-national- security-journalis/)

<comment><USER12> Thanks.

The nice thing about court cases is that they're divided nicely into parts that consider different questions before the court. You also get an entire section called "Background" which I hear is useful.

But even before you get to the background, just by reading the first page, you get a more nuanced view of what's going on. The decision's split up into seven parts, of which only part I and VI saw unanimous agreement. Judge Gregory dissented for parts II-V, and Judge Diaz wrote his own opinion for part VII, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Also, you can see that in some questions, the lower court's affirmed, in others it was rejected, and some questions were sent back to it.

What other nuance can we pull out of this from reading just a few more sentences?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This kind of thing proves how much of a genius Osama Bin Laden was when he planned the 9/11 attacks. He knew we would throw away our values and move toward totalitarianism.

With the massive surveillance apparatus in place, US journalists scared to cover many of these stories that RT covers, etc., the US is one attack away from instituting a much more overt police state.

Peter King is one attack away from the White House.

In the midst of all this it's amazing how little dissent there is. I used to think it was mysterious how things like Nazi Germany could have happened, but now I think it's clear that it just takes a series of small steps in the wrong direction, and none of the actors have to be overtly evil.

</comment><comment><USER5> This has got to stop.

This administration is walking all over civil liberties and constitutionally protected freedoms. It is turning way too many citizens into enemies of the state. And where not charging them as such, it settles for treating them as such.

The branches are not keeping each other in check, either. Instead, they continue to allow themselves to be complicit in violating the consent of the governed, fighting over useless, divisive issues (let's break the country's arm to control everyone's sexuality), and tossing away the constitutional protections we've grown far too accustomed to taking for granted.

This is unacceptable.

<comment><USER15> Remind me where in the Constitution it says that "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of journalists to keep their sources secret?"

Indeed, keeping sources secret cuts against the common law evidentiary practice that was typical at the time of the founding. Common law courts have sweeping powers to force people to hand over evidence in their possession using subpoenas, with just a few limitations (5th amendment self- incrimination, etc).

The Wikipedia page for an older journalist privilege case gives a good description: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branzburg_v._Hayes)

Floyd Abrams, noted 1st amendment lawyer, had this to say about the case: "[Persuading the Court to grant First Amendment protection to journalists regarding their sources] was obviously going to be a hard sell. Notwithstanding the strong policy arguments in favor of establishing this privilege and the serious harm that would be caused by its absence, no such protection had ever been held to exist. Not only was the concept that the judicial system was entitled to 'every man's evidence' itself deeply rooted in the Constitution, but merely determining the scope of the privilege (when would it apply?) and identifying who would receive it (only regularly employed journalists? freelancers? anyone?) were difficult matters at best."

<comment><USER16> > _Remind me where in the Constitution it says that "Congress shall pass no > law abridging the freedom of journalists to keep their sources secret?"_

Remind me where in his comment he said it was in the Constitution?

What he said was: "This administration is walking all over civil liberties and constitutionally protected freedoms".

"Civil liberties" and "constitutionally protected freedoms" being two different (if somewhat joined) sets.

Second, it can very convincingly be argued that the taking away of such a protection is bad, regarless of if it was in the Constitution or not. (Depending on your stance on the freedom of the press and it's ability to keep those in power in control, of course).

The heart of the issue is not if it was in the Constitution. That's a pedantic issue, irrelevant in a democracy. The items in the ammemndements weren't in the Constitution either. And if the right to own slaves had been in the Constitution, few would argue for it remaining there, some centuries years later.

The core of the issue is: do people WANT such a protection or not? And do people feel that they explicitly taking of the table is bad or not?

<comment><USER17> The root comment said "This administration is walking all over civil liberties and constitutionally protected freedoms", and, later, that USG was "tossing away the constitutional protections we've grown far too accustomed to taking for granted". Rayiner's interpretation wasn't just fair but also the most obvious one.

<comment><USER5> Well, considering that my comment said nothing specifically about journalists or their being a constitutional right to protect one's sources, we must have different understandings of what a fair interpretation is, and what obvious means.

What strikes me as obvious, from the content of my comment and a political theoretic standpoint is what I stated—this administration is running afoul of what we've taken for granted, and the branches are not properly balancing each other's powers to protect the Constitution and the governed.

<comment><USER17> It's disingenuous to pretend that you weren't talking about journalists when your comment roots a thread on a story about journalists. What else would you have been talking about? I think, rather, that you see 'coldtea as supporting you, and are now in turn sticking up for him; you see yourselves now as a faction, which is unfortunate.

<comment><USER5> Are you kidding me? You're now, from the comfort of your detached position, attributing intent and making a ridiculous assertion of seeing myself and other complete strangers on the Internet as a faction? This is what's unfortunate—that you think you can even figure out the complexities of my thoughts based on your subjective experience as an outsider.

Care to explain just how exactly you can possibly determine from your vantage point the evidence that supports the claim that I am pretending? That's pretty much accusing me of behaving falsely, and you've got all that from a couple sentences? Who is coldtea to me but an Internet stranger? Why would I care to stick up for him? Moreover, why would I behave falsely and betray my original intent to support a stranger? I hadn't even read his comments before I replied to you (see how I replied to yours before rayiner's? I'm replying from email links in which all I have is the direct reply text, not surrounding context).

> _What else would you have been talking about?_

Would you like me to get a mathematical estimate of how many possible combinations exist for what else I might have been talking about? Please, don't make such a fool's mistake of thinking you can reliably determine what is happening inside my head and my motivations from a couple of sentences.

Your comments show a far greater potential for seeing yourself in some kind of a faction with rayiner. I usually appreciate many of your comments, but goddamn, you really like to defend the shit out of rayiner way overstepping interpretation and not bothering to verify he's on the correct trajectory.

<comment><USER17> Are you sure this sentiment was worth almost 300 words?

Let's just agree to disagree.

<comment><USER5> Was your sentiment of accusing me of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith worth the words and your reputation to levy the charge?

Two rational people cannot agree to disagree. One of them is doing something wrong.

<comment><USER18> In this context, Thomas's "let's agree to disagree" is clearly a euphemism for _each of us is wasting his time trying to change the other 's mind, so let's not bother any more._

> _Two rational people cannot agree to disagree. One of them is doing > something wrong._

Your first quoted sentence goes too far [0]. Rational people can and do agree to disagree over, for example, whether the universe has 10 dimensions, or 11, or 26 [1].

Your second sentence doesn't go far enough: _Both_ (of the putatively rational people) could be doing something wrong.

[0] All categorical statements are bad --- including this one.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_phys...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_\(mathematics_and_physics\)#Additional_dimensions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting how Russia Today is doing to the US what Radio Liberty and Voice of America did to the USSR thirty years ago.

</comment><comment><USER20> Does that make it a crime for a journalist to take the 5th?

<comment><USER8> In Australia at least, yes. Many have been found in contempt of court and jailed because of it. Does the right to not self incriminating extend to incriminating your source?

<comment><USER7> You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself (or your spouse, law client, etc), but you _can_ be compelled to testify against someone else, which is how subpoenas work.

<comment><USER21> Even if they don't know who this third party is? What if the source is your spouse?

<comment><USER10> In the US, spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other.

<comment><USER21> Then how can you be compelled to reveal your anonymous source? After all, it could be your spouse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _The reporter must appear and give testimony just as every other citizen must. We are not at liberty to conclude otherwise._

I hope they hold the same opinion of NSA agents.

</comment><comment><USER23> "Journalist" has always been a bit of an artificial distinction. Members of the press don't get special rights for being so. The most they may have gotten in the past was special access.

This clearly shows two things. We've _all_ been journalists all along and we never really quite had the rights we thought we had.

<comment><USER24> Agreed. Whether journalists are legally allowed to protect their sources or not, this right (or lack thereof) needs to apply to all citizens. Otherwise, we would have created a new class of people who have different constitutional rights than others.

How can the legal system selectively allow some people the right to protect sources and not others? Who gets to decide who's a journalist? Do we draw the line at establishment reporters? Or do we allow full-time bloggers? What about part-time bloggers? What about if someone's never blogged before, but suddenly has something to say?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Journalists" are not given _special_ rights by the 1st amendment, which states that _all of us_ are entitled to freedom _of the press_ (not freedom _for the press_ ).

In the internet age, we are all _journalists_ and therefore we should _all_ have the right not to reveal our sources for what we publish.

<comment><USER26> Who will now want to whistleblow on the government for illegal activities, when the NSA will strongarm any media that you speak to?

This will actively encourage corruption.

<comment><USER27> Foreign countries? Its common practice in China, Russia and other similar countries that anti-regime reporting is done outside the border. PRQ (the ISP of the pirate bay back in 2006) was hosting several similar news papers, as Sweden was seen as a haven for activities demanding common carrier principle. Now days, I guess Iceland has taken the primary role for such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well, journalists will have to come up with a way of having people send them scoop without revealing who the scoop senders are.

<comment><USER29> Wasn't something like that published recently?

<comment><USER30> Are you referring to strongbox? Strongbox only works if the institution operating it cannot be compelled to sabotage it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What is unprecedented and disturbing is the classification of releasing information to the (American) public, whether that be through the New York Times or Pastebin, as aiding the enemy.

Unauthorized leaks have never been legal but in the past even the government has understood that these people are a far cry from being enemy agents.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is not quite true - they still can keep their sources secret, but under the renewed threat of being charged with contempt of court.

Whether or not this causes a sufficiently chilling effect on whistleblowing within the US, or reporting on it, remains to be seen.

</comment><comment><USER33> Well he can go to the witness stand but stay silent, i.e No Comment. He can be asked questions, but surely he can't be compelled to answer them.

<comment><USER34> Then he's getting locked up for contempt of court because he's refusing to comply with a lawful order from the judge.

<comment><USER35> Indeed. And there is a long and respectable history of journalists doing just that:

[http://www.rcfp.org/jailed-journalists](http://www.rcfp.org/jailed- journalists)

The list is neither exhaustive nor particularly recent, but certainly it shows this is nothing new - there has _never_ been protection for journalists who will not comply with a court order to reveal their sources.

The good ones will refuse to reveal them anyway, and face any consequences.

<comment><USER36> I fully agree. If James Risen testifies, his journalistic career is over. If I was a somebody like James Risen is[1], I would not even think twice before holding any court of law in contempt[2].

[1]: He is a Pulitzer-winning journalist. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Risen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Risen)

[2]: If you are reading this statement, you, your government, and anyone else hereby lose your right to sue me for any reason whatsoever to eternity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> So the fourth estate now can't keep their sources secret ...

Funny because the executive branch seems to like their secrets so much, they will work to set up secret courts with secret laws just so the secrets don't get revealed to the public. And they will go to great lengths to pursue those that reveal those secrets. "Trust us, we followed due process and our actions have been authorized by a few secret courts."

But journalists? Hey they are just "citizens." After all who cares that this will severely hamper anonymous sources to the media?

</comment><comment><USER38> The moment a journalist is compelled to reveal a source with the whole profession is over except tabloids, Fox News alikes and other works of fiction?

It is not about just journalist we need broad third party protections for information possession.

After all the whole idea is the government to not have the things too easy.</comment>


Fearing Google... - <AUTHOR> http://www.dharmesh.com/Blog/bid/490/Fearing-Google-Why-Businesses-Should-Be-Worried

<comment><USER2> If someone proposed that my company be subject to regulations on what algorithm we could use to rank our search results, I'd be kind of upset about that.

</comment><comment><USER3> Google won't listen to that anyways.</comment>


Ubuntu 17.10 corrupting BIOS of many Lenovo laptop models - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1734147 <comment><USER2> For those who dont remember, this has happened in the past with systemd - [https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402](https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402)

At the time systemd got a lot of serious heat and poettering got called names for something that was not systemd's fault to begin with.

> _To make this very clear: we actually write to the EFI fs in systemd. > Specifically, when you issue "systemctl reboot --firmware" we'll set the > appropriate EFI variable, to ask for booting into the EFI firmware setup. > And because we need it writable we'll mount it writable for that._

<comment><USER3> It absolutely was systemd's fault -- systemd regularly half-implements or changes default behavior in ways that "should" be okay, but aren't okay, because they don't know why the fence was built (in the Chestertonian sense). Systems programmers should know the history of their discipline.

<comment><USER4> I wrote the EFI variables filesystem. It was intended to be mounted read/write. Systemd did nothing wrong whatsoever in mounting it read/write, and mounting it read only would have broken all the existing userland that handles EFI variables.

<comment><USER5> What userland is it ? And why is it a problem for that userland to mount it itself ?

Why would you even write to efi ? Maybe at boot, i don't know, but certainly not while running ? Not all the time ? Oh i hope there isn't a single program that continuously writes to efi.

In my opinion systemd _is_ at fault, as they aim to be the "system" and yet every once in a while prove that they don't know shit.

EDIT: A program that changes the boot order is all i can think of. (I'm not the one who knows best, on this topic)

<comment><USER4> > What userland is it ? And why is it a problem for that userland to mount it > itself ?

At the very least, efibootmgr. The problem with userland mounting it itself is that it has no code to mount it itself because even before systemd everybody mounted the filesystem read/write.

> Why would you even write to efi ? Maybe at boot, i don't know, but certainly > not while running ?

A whole bunch of reasons. Maybe you want something that's tied to the hardware without relying on the OS (eg, tpmtotp). Maybe you want to be able to differentiate between a clean and unclean system shutdown. Maybe you want to indicate that the system should install a firmware update next time it's in boot services.

> In my opinion systemd is at fault, as they aim to be the "system" and yet > every once in a while prove that they don't know shit.

At the time this issue was raised, _nobody_ knew shit. We had no idea that removing certain variables might prevent a machine from booting. If we had done, I'd have written the filesystem differently.

> I'm not the one who knows best, on this topic

I wrote the code in question. I am one of the people who does know best on this topic. Systemd did nothing wrong.

<comment><USER6> Couldn't the filesystem be mounted as read-only during normal operation, and only remounted temporarily as rw when necessary? Tools that write to this filesystem tend to have the necessary privileges to do so.

Leaving efi writable like this by default strikes me as a very poor and unsubstantiated design decision.

<comment><USER4> > Couldn't the filesystem be mounted as read-only during normal operation, and > only remounted temporarily as rw when necessary?

Yes, except that none of the tools in question have any support for doing that and so mounting the filesystem read-only rather than read/write would break them. And congratulations, now you've still got a window where something can still break everything while the filesystem is mounted read/write (what happens if the tool crashes during that phase?).

> Leaving efi writable like this by default strikes me as a very poor and > unsubstantiated design decision.

Yes with hindsight that's entirely accurate and it was also _my_ decision and nothing to do with systemd.

<comment><USER6> > now you've still got a window where something can still break everything > while the filesystem is mounted read/write

I agree, but I'm also sure you would agree that a small window were things can go horribly wrong is much more preferable than than a perpetually open one (sudo and friends stand testament to this).

Please bear in mind that my comments are in no way an attack on your person or one directed at systemd. What I want is to find a workable solution or, at the very least, a compromise to prevent this type of issues from occurring. I strongly believe that protecting hardware is a core responsibility of any operating system.

Would it be reasonable for me to ask you to coordinate with all the major tool developers to gradually phasing out this behavior? As in both the filesystem and tooling continue to support both current semantics and a newer version until the older semantics can be safely disabled. This is how support tends to get phased out from the kernel for obsolete hardware.

Issues of this type have reared their heads many times already and I expect they will continue to occur if the underlying reason is not addressed. As the person who has the ability to do something about it, I urge you to reconsider.

<comment><USER4> > I agree, but I'm also sure you would agree that a small window were things > can go horribly wrong is much more preferable than than a perpetually open > one (sudo and friends stand testament to this).

What's even more preferable is a situation where the kernel doesn't let you do the damage in the first place, which is what we have now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> EFI allows for OS's to modify probably too much, and the state of EFI implementations aren't defensive enough.

I personally _would_ blame Lenovo for releasing something so brick-able.

<comment><USER8> I managed to brick my Asus N61JV-X2 by updating the bios using their official bios update software. (Specs if you're curious [https://www.anandtech.com/show/2962/asus-n61j-x2-optimus- gt3...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/2962/asus-n61j-x2-optimus-gt325m-meets- arrandale) )

I also learned that backup bios chips were a thing but not usually available on a notebook PC

<comment><USER9> I managed to brick Thinkpad X230, flashing BIOS update that came via TVSU. Now, that's an achievement :/

<comment><USER10> Here I was thinking that the 230 was indestructible

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How could an OS corrupt a BIOS ? BIOS is in a <strike>higher</strike> lower (see alex_duf comment) level than OS, and then, should no be modified by any program, except maybe by an update program, and only with a firmware signed by lenovo.

<comment><USER12> Well, you could at one time brick your computer by by executing an ill-advised "rm -rf" from Linux.

Made the news some years back I think.

<comment><USER13> You can do a similar thing in any OS - delete the vast majority of your file system by running a command as root/administrator and ignoring warnings. FYI rm -rf no longer recurses upwards (. and ..) and hasn't done so for a very, very long time.

This problem is about breaking the BIOS in some way, something that you should not be able to do.

<comment><USER14> You used to be able (maybe still are?) to "rm" the files on a mounted efivarfs. See the relevant systemd issue ([1]).

[1] [https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402](https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402)

<comment><USER15> well windows can get write access to these aswell. (just not by using rm or any other tool to remove files by default). I think this is a big difference and should probably be addressed. make /sys read-only and allow to write them differently with a interface where I need to call THIS_METHOD_CAN_BREAK_A_SYSTEM_IF_USED_INCORRECT_WRITE_SYS() command. but well, systemd guys will/won't do that.

<comment><USER16> It wasn't a systemd thing. The people who relate the tale as if it were a systemd thing or something that the systemd people did are ill-informed. Much as in the case of the headlined bug at hand, it was entirely a kernel thing. This was even stated outright at the time by the creator of that particular kernel mechanism.

To learn the real story, go and read [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11152880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11152880) where you will find Matthew Garrett xyrself participating in the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 17.10 was the absolute most buggy software that I have installed from Canonical. I tried it on Dell hardware (+ Apple Hardware, + A VMware VM on X64 + VirtualBox on OSX, etc) that does just fine with Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, and it was constantly prompting me to send error reports, killing processes, etc. I just flipped from using the "latest" vs the LTS versions at home because of this version, specifically.

<comment><USER18> Not the worst Ubuntu version, but I had a lot of issues with the default protocol being Wayland [1].

This broke a few programs I use, [2] mainly the screenshot application "Shutter". Most users don't realise it became the default, so their apps just stopped working... bad decision in my opinion.

[1] [http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/08/ubuntu-confirm-wayland- de...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/08/ubuntu-confirm-wayland- default-17-10)

[2] [https://askubuntu.com/questions/971273/screenshot-feature- of...](https://askubuntu.com/questions/971273/screenshot-feature-of-shutter- doesnt-work-after-upgrading-to-ubuntu-17-10/971278)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My XPS 13 Developer edition had something similar happen to it shortly after upgrading to 17.10. However I think this was circumstance, and that the real culprit was a bad BIOS update from Dell which removed all entries from the boot list (or something to that effect).

<comment><USER20> What did you do to recover?

<comment><USER21> (not the parent, but I had the same laptop with the same problem) I reinstalled Fedora. I could have probably recovered the grub bootloader manually, but I wasn't really keen on sitting there for a few hours. All my data was backed up anyway.

<comment><USER20> It still allowed you to boot from USB? How do you recover if you lose that option (other than sending in your laptop to be reflashed)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It isn't Ubuntu doing it. It is Intel and Lenovo.

Owner of a $3k Lenovo P50 here that was "Linux compatible" but a stake xeon that had been useless on Linux until the latest Fedora.

</comment><comment><USER23> Might be a coincidence, but I haven't been able to get into my Toshiba's BIOS since moving to 17.10. Every time I try and enter the BIOS config menu, it reboots.

</comment><comment><USER24> Just like all the other UEFI implementations, the Lenovo one is probably a giant piece of crap.

The main problem is Windows because it allows manufacturers to get away with the 'it runs Windows so it's good enough to release' mindset.

<comment><USER25> The main problem is Linux. Linux cannot be tested, it designates hundreds of variable setups of distributions, kernels and tools. It's not possible to test anything against that.

Lenovo supports redhat and ubuntu, that's already a lot. [https://support.lenovo.com/gb/en/solutions/pd031426](https://support.lenovo.com/gb/en/solutions/pd031426)

<comment><USER24> They shouldn't support RedHat, Ubuntu and Windows. They should provide a solid, compliant UEFI implementation and then Windows, RedHat Linux and Ubuntu Linux will support them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Good thing I saw this. I was thinking about installing Ubuntu or Mint on my X1 Yoga during the holidays. I'll hold off now or do some more research.

<comment><USER27> For what it's worth, I haven't had this problem with Arch Linux on my ThinkPad T470s or P50 and I did a fresh install on the P50 this week. Arch has really nice ThinkPad support and documentation, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It looks like Lenovo's problem.

<comment><USER29> Yes, while Ubuntu has regressed, the root of the problem seems to be a Lenovo logic error where Lenovo resets the BIOS settings if the write protection bit is set to read/write.

[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1734147...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1734147/comments/173)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it safe to install on a Dell XPS 15?

<comment><USER31> I upgraded my XPS 15 (9550) from Ubuntu 17.04 to 17.10 about a week ago and have had no issues so far. Actually, I find it a little less buggy on my XPS than 17.04 was - overall I am pretty happy with it. Of course YMMV - my specs are below

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

Dell BIOS: 1.5.1

i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz

16GB RAM

Intel® HD Graphics 530 + NVidia

512GB SSD

<comment><USER30> Did you manage to get both GPUs to work?

<comment><USER32> It's a bit of a pain, but quite doable on most distros, if you know your way around. I just did it on two distros for my ThinkPad 25: with openSUSE it was part of a weekend of playing around with it and setting it up, and on NixOS it took an hour or two to set up how I like.

The real problem, imo, is that all of the solutions work badly (they either work at a performance penalty (as with Bumblebee) or require a separate X server for each GPU).

This is entirely a result of NVIDIA's refusal to implement decent support. The Nouveau drivers offer proper PRIME support, which yields an experience more like that on Windows in terms of workflow and the amount of setup (virtually none) required, but they have their own performance problems. Hybrid graphics with AMD GPUs apparently works nicely with whatever drivers you like, granted that the software stack is sufficiently up to date on your system.</comment></comment></comment>


On the prowl for local startups - <AUTHOR>

Hi, all. I'd like to introduce my "ugly baby", Startupolitan; a site bridging local startups with the people in their community. From launch date, local startups will have exposure to the crowd that matters most. Users can select their location and browse through the latest startups in their area. After spearheading a few myself, there was always one buzzkilling, undying question that arose with every single one, "how will I get the word out?" In the midst of answering that question repeatedly, I realized a few things, 1) just how little support startups really have, 2) how creative I really am and 3) how much money I can plow through within less than 24 hours.
Startupolitan is an idea that I've been toying with for a little while now and I've just decided to put it out into the universe as I feel it is certainly needed by many.
It's been a ridiculous challenge trying to maneuver through those who've already received either enough recognition or enough VC funding to be well on their way. What I'm looking for most are the indie, likely bootstrapped startups. Be my guest and submit a neat startup that you know of, or even better, one that you're behind. Would love to hear back from some of you.
http://www.startupolitan.squarespace.com (Yes, it's a trial. Yes, it's Squarespace. For the moment. I've learned from my financial mistakes.)
Cheers,
Saphire, Editor <comment><USER2> Cool. Done. The groovy photo ask was kind of annoying, but then I got over it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great company. Thanks for the submission!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is what the world sees currently at that link:

 _Squarespace trial accounts are not visible to the public. When you are ready to publish your website, upgrading your trial will make your site active to the world._

You can get to the site to see it but there are a few hoops to jump through. Given that there are other free platforms which don't make people jump through those hoops to even see the site, you might consider moving it to some other free platform.

Also, I am failing to understand what the site is supposed to be doing for a startup. I am seeing a short list of companies with location in the city + state format. Maybe I am just stupid, but I just don't see what the value here is supposed to be. The About page (called _411_ ) is not really helping me wrap my head around it.

<comment><AUTHOR> The site will soon be moved to another platform, the domain will be registered etc. I really just wanted to get it started, bare bones.

The objective now is to build a list of great startups and create traffic flow to the website. It is a passionate mission of mine to give startups the exposure they need from day one. In essence, Startupolitan is to be the destination for people to go to discover startups in their area. To my knowledge, no such place exists.

<comment><USER3> Sure. Maybe you weren't looking for constructive feedback, just members? I don't know. I have a number of projects but nothing I would call "a startup" and although some of those projects are location-oriented, nothing is really location-based per se because the plan is to make money online. So I am, unfortunately, not a good candidate for joining your site. But I like being helpful and I know sometimes an outsider perspective is a good thing. Thus, the comment.

Best of luck.</comment></comment></comment>


Review HN: Made landing page a game to promote interaction. - <AUTHOR>

What do you guys think?<p>http://www.grooovy.me/persona <comment><USER2> I really liked the page and you got me hooked with the service.

But initially I missed the point on the search for the hidden images. I searched with the magnifier but I didn't clicked the button so I was there for an entire minute just moving the mouse (congrats on that :)). I think it could be expressed more clearly what the visitor is expected to do.

About the product. Just iPhone? I guess you missed an user there. Another suggestion: being a father of a 3 month baby I miss a service were I can register my baby growing. I take a lot of photos but there is nothing out there (that I know of) that let me easily aggregate those photos into a living album. I just realized Persona could be just that with slight changes. Think about it as a possibility

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks zarroba!

Excellent feedback, I'll make it a little more clear what visitor is expected to do. On another note though, you not finding the hidden images for at least a minute meant the game worked ;).

We're starting with iphone, but unsure still as to what other platforms we'll expand to. You know, the usual budget problems, hiring more people, etc. To clarify, your problem with a three month old baby is already solved with Persona. Persona focuses on things that are about you that make up who you are and defines your life. Photographs are stored in "slices" of your life which can be named "Growingup" or "proudtobeafather". You can name that part of your life anything you'd like. Within those slices, you would store the photos of your baby so you can visualize he/she growing up day by day.

Welcome to Persona. It's everything you are, in pictures. (sorry, had to throw in our tagline, it just seemed like the perfect time to do it :-)).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you stay focused when waiting for code to compile? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I don't, I come here.</comment>


Market it and see if anyone gives a shit - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@arturkiulian/10-tips-on-minimum-desirable-product-part-1-90e4b5dd7f4a

<comment><USER2> Really good one! It describes my own experience very precisely.

I'm also in transition from "build they come" to "market it and see if anyone gives a sh*t" mindset.</comment>


Building an Open Source Lockitron with Arduino, BLE, and the Bean - <AUTHOR> http://makezine.com/projects/ble-controlled-door-lock/

<comment><USER2> Also featured here: [http://punchthrough.com/bean/ble-controlled-door- lock/](http://punchthrough.com/bean/ble-controlled-door-lock/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've spent ages in LightBlue poking at BLE devices. I had no idea there was also a hardware module, the "bean". It looks pretty nice: [http://punchthrough.com/bean/](http://punchthrough.com/bean/) \-- definitely a lot easier than manhandling directly on the TI BLE controller...

</comment><comment><USER4> This is great! The pin codes make this so much more secure!</comment>