Tesla jumps 14% on S&P 500 inclusion speculation Now the 10th by market value - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/13/tesla-jumps-11percent-on-sp-500-inclusion-speculation---now-the-10th-biggest-us-stock-by-market-value.html <comment><USER2> I love the idea of Tesla, and what it's helped promote. But I do worry about its cult of personality, and what effect that could have on the stock should something happen to Elon.

I got in around late 2012 because Elon spoke about really good ideas, and I really wanted to promote what he was talking about. It's been quite a ride, with the acquisitions of Solar City and Maxwell Technologies. Those additions made me have hope we'd see a real mover that could help get a lot of the world onto solar energy.

However, I look at the stock prices right now, and I can't help but see they've been greatly overvalued since ~January 2020 with the major driving force (in my opinion) only being the cult of Elon.

I admire what he's done, and his ambition, but I also worry if he gets removed or hit by a CyberTruck, if the company will still continue as it is now, or if it would spell disaster.

<comment><USER3> Completely agree, Tesla's stock has a bus factor of 1. I do believe it's made a big enough push already to spark the change to clean energy, and that's what really matters here.

<comment><USER4> > I do believe it's made a big enough push already to spark the change to > clean energy

Are there studies that show this? I don't see or know how any push in cars, electric or not, is necessarily moving us toward cleaner transportation much less clean energy.

<comment><USER3> Here's a couple links, one a paper from McGill tying green energy and political power, and an article from National Geographic saying "Two-thirds of young adults (aged 18 to 34) say they're inclined to vote for a political candidate who supports cutting greenhouse gas emissions and increasing financial incentives for renewable energy".

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462961...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617303468)

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great- energy-...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy- challenge/2014/poll-finds-generation-gap-on-energy-issues-as-millennials- voice-climate-concerns/)

<comment><USER4> Thank you the links. I will read them in more detail, but at first glance, they don't address what I am asking.

If you look at an EV versus ICE car in isolation, the EV is definitely greener. However, if we look at the whole system and process of electric energy production, gas production, battery production and disposal, etc., I have not seen analyses that compare which is actually greener. I would love to be pointed to this, as I have tried to find it! As far as I can tell from my searching, they are essentially overall the same, except that the effects are spread around in time and place.

Now, I can assume that there is a tacit argument that putting more electric vehicles on the road increases the demand for clean energy because electric vehicles tax electricity production heavier, which is not that green now. However, are electric cars really the primary driving factor for clean electricity production? Actual clean energy production is obviously extremely important.

Also, I don't understand how continually building more and more cars gets us to a cleaner future. I imagine whenever self-driving cars arrive, we'll all just be sitting in packed streets. That doesn't feel necessarily cleaner or futuristic.

<comment><USER5> ? I have not seen analyses that compare which is actually greener. I would love to be pointed to this,

[https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle- grave](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cleaner-cars-cradle-grave)

In summary, it takes about 18 months of driving before an the reduced gasoline emissions compensates for the increased manufacturing emissions.

> I imagine whenever self-driving cars arrive, we'll all just be sitting in > packed streets.

Agreed. So many people think that self-driving cars are going to reduce congestion, an argument I don't buy. They'll make congestion much worse IMO.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the link! That's the first time I've seen an analysis like that in terms of the time it takes for a crossover event. It'll take longer to read through their full report. Although, it does exclude the environmental impact of the battery disposal problem, at least in the summary article.

And yea, I'm not looking forward to the self-driving "utopia". I feel it's solving the wrong problems and will create wholly new problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Tesla's market cap per car sold is 112x higher than Volkswagen (sales data for last year). They never had a profitable year.

<comment><USER7> Tesla completely turned the industry on its head with their electric cars - something dinosaur incumbents like Volkswagen were either unwilling or unable to do. Maybe people see a future in Tesla and not as much in Volkswagen, and the price reflects the future not the past?

<comment><USER8> VW is the company with the third largest R&D budget, after Amazon and almost tied with Alphabet. More than ten times larger than Tesla.

Over recent years they built a substantial tech base for EVs that they are on the brink of introducing at scale. The Zwickau plant alone is planned to scale to 330000 EVs/y next year. ICE production at Zwickau is shut down.

This is diametrically opposed to, for example, BMW who seem to be more doubling down on ICE with token efforts towards EVs for now. It's not insane to say that Tesla will eat BMWs share of the future, but that is valued ten times lower.

<comment><USER9> I hate these 'R&D' budget argument. The can spend money but actually Tesla was first on all the important stuff. So have no idea why this all of a sudden is supposed to matter.

VW can barley get the basic software for their EV right at the moment. The CEO has admitted the lead Tesla has.

> planned to scale to 330000 EVs/y next year.

They have been missing their claimed targets many times before. Even if they manage that, only a tiny % of current cars sold are electric. Nobody believes Tesla will own 100% of the market.

If VW can actually make good on all those promesses, their stock will also go up.

But having the legacy and investment of massively depreciating ICE assets and not shown the ability to produce profits with EVs, they will need to execute to convince investors again.

<comment><USER8> It's a question of ressources. Just like it's hard to see Microsoft becoming irrelevant simply because they have so much cash that they can just keep trying.

What exactly was Tesla first on? They managed decent range but there EVs are simply not that difficult to build compared to ICEs. Software is big but they know they are behind they have the ressources, and the institutional commitment.

It's not that I think Tesla should have the same cats/validation ratio as VW. They are ahead after all. But it's very hard to see the extend of the discrepancy in validation as justified over the long run for me. And it's not like VW is ignoring adjacent markets, Moia is a reasonably successful pilot, etc...

<comment><USER9> > What exactly was Tesla first on? They managed decent range but there EVs are > simply not that difficult to build compared to ICEs.

This myth simply does not hold up once you consider how pretty much all manufactures have run into massive problems with EV production and struggle to achieve margin.

If it was so easy as claimed, Tesla would not multiple of the highest selling EV all over the world.

<comment><USER10> Tesla need to sell EV but others not. Selling ICE/HV/PHEV cars is more profitable for now.

<comment><USER9> Stocks are forward looking into the future. Making big profits now was not moving the stocks up, and now companies like Ford are not even making much profit anymore.

All that ICE infrastructure is massive bound up capital, that gone be a negative in a couple of years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a complete mystery to me why they don't raise some capital at this valuation. They could wipe off all the debt and have a decade's worth of capex in cash for a very small dilution.

<comment><USER12> They already did an offering earlier this year for $2B when it first started going crazy. You're right that they should do another.

What I don't understand is how all the S&P 500 index funds don't get soaked _every_ time a stock enters or leaves the index. Everyone in the world can front-run those giant trades, just like we're seeing now. Do the index funds just absorb the losses every time or do they have enough flexibility to avoid it somehow?

<comment><USER13> Great question; index funds rarely carry the entire portfolio of 500 securities - it's very expensive to manage that much stock at scale and rebalance each one.

What they do instead is hold a limited portfolio of 10, 50, 100 stocks from the S&P500 that best "represent" the index.

Technically Tesla is already in the S&P500; the real question is whether index fund managers are going to decide to start using it in their representation of the index.

The other commenter is also correct. There are many ways to hedge in favor of or against a stock issue becoming indexed by S&p500 funds in a way to dampen the impact of people trying to 'front-run' (although it's not actually frontrunning in the legal sense)

<comment><USER14> > index funds rarely carry the entire portfolio of 500 securities - it's very > expensive to manage that much stock at scale and rebalance each one.

This doesn't pass the sniff test. Funds calling themselves "S&P 500" funds but not actually holding the 500 companies in the index seems like false advertising at best and downright fraud at worst. And rebalancing a fund's holdings should be an automated process whose cost should be covered by the funds fees.

<comment><USER15> They're called "S&P 500 index funds" because they _closely track_ the S&P 500. If you look at literally any such fund, you will see they always have some nonzero tracking error. That's mathematically unavoidable. The task of the fund manager is to minimize that error, among other things.

<comment><USER14> I thought the whole point of "index funds" was that they are not "actively managed" by a human fund manager. They should just automatically track the index (with some minimal tracking error).

<comment><USER15> Mostly. They aren't "actively managed" in the same sense as non-index funds. Humans need to make some decisions about what to include, and monitor to make sure things like tracking error are low and tax efficiency is high. This is not trivial, which is why index funds were not just some obvious concept that has existed forever, and why, when John Bogle articulated the concept in the 70s at Vanguard, tens of them didn't just immediately pop up.

They're the type of object that looks very simple from the outside, and acts very simply, but, under the covers there's a good deal of stuff going on. It's kind of like how the steam engine is a very simple concept (in fact, the ancient Greeks invented a simple steam engine [0]), but, if you look at it at the very lowest level, you can't model how each individual water molecule contributes to the functioning of the whole.

That's not to say index funds have emergent behaviors. Rather that they work internally in ways you, the investor, don't need to care about, because they're designed to have that fairly predictable and simple external behavior.

Put another way: ever wonder why an index fund would need to have any management fee at all ( _i.e._ why there's a nonzero expense ratio)? The reason is because they are managed, and you have to pay people to do that.

\---

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As a former engineer at Tesla, the valuation does not make sense at all. Their internal infrastructure is a complete mess, and honestly, it's full of security issues, I wouldn't be surprised if things start falling apart.

<comment><USER17> A mistake some engineers make, I've made it myself, is thinking that a company's success has anything to do with how good the code is from a computer science ivory tower perspective. A fast growing startup usually has a huge mess from the fast growth no? Haven't seen it otherwise, but that's just my anecdotal sample size.

<comment><USER18> Second this. A company is more than just software and code... It's also marketing, hype, goodwill, customer service, design, UX etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Clearly worth more than book value of approximately $59.76 at the time of writing. But over 28 times so? Sure, OK.

<comment><USER20> Much of this is driven by retail investors, of whom there are many more now since sports betting has not been available for months.

<comment><USER21> You raise a very interesting wrinkle here. When/if sports resume and the gamblers can gamble again, does the $TSLA money move back into sports?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This sucks for everyone in S&P 500 funds who didn't jump on the Tesla bandwagon because they thought it was overvalued. Now you got none of the upside but you get to hold the bag.

<comment><USER23> Is this the new IPO? Pump a stock till index investors are forced to own it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Valuations like these are unsustainable, and so far fetched from reality. It is only a matter of time before TSLA gets a correction, which will drop the stock ~ 30 - 40% from its ATH.

</comment><comment><USER25> I love Tesla, SpaceX and Elon (as a visionary) but don't understand the valuation. I remember when we (most of us) all laughed at this $420/share buyout valuation, because it was so far from reality...and now it's trading nearly 4x that, in less than a year...on really no real news outside of hitting production numbers. The fact that Tesla is now bigger than Toyota is absolutely bonkers to me. Toyota isn't that far behind the curve.

</comment><comment><USER26> ... and yet they still haven't answered questions from David Einhorn about their accounts receivable: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/einhorn-a...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-22/einhorn- again-questions-tesla-accounts-receivable-k3aii1g2)

</comment><comment><USER27> I am happy for Tesla, and the original master plan to fund the Mars colonization.

I would politely remind Mr. Elon Must where he started. He was on a grand mission that I believe was right and important. That was the reason I became a Tesla stock owner.

<comment><USER28> Tesla already succeeded by moving electrification of cars earlier than it would have been normally done by other car companies. The biggest change in the master plan is moving to self driving cars instead of cheap cars. We'll see how much time the achievement takes, but my guess is that it will be faster than replacing all cars in the world with electric ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Tesla _wasn 't already_ in the S&P 500? Even at the more sane $100 share price, that would put it at ~$20 billion market cap, well above about two fifths of the existing S&P 500 companies.

Source: Sortable list last updated July 7: [https://fknol.com/list/stock-list- sp-500-index.php](https://fknol.com/list/stock-list-sp-500-index.php)

<comment><USER30> It is more than just market cap that lets you into the S&P. There are also other rules. Tesla is projected to pass the GAAP positive earnings test soon.

A committee selects each of the index's 500 corporations based on their liquidity, size, and industry. It rebalances the index quarterly, in March, June, September, and December. To qualify for the index, a company must be in the United States, have an unadjusted market cap of at least $8.2 billion. At least 50% of the corporation's stock must be available to the public. Its stock price must be at least $1 per share. It must file a 10-K annual report. At least 50% of its fixed assets and revenues must be in the United States. _Finally, it must have at least four consecutive quarters of positive earnings._

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Tesla really did accelerate renewable energy and battery tech by maybe a decade.

I would love to see them raise $20B and just massively move us another decade forward towards a sustainable energy future. But relative to Uber, etc Elon has always been less aggressive on equity raises, as he believes that constraints help.

</comment><comment><USER32> So individual heavyweights get to front-run the ETFs and then sell to them at an inflated value? Sounds about right...

</comment><comment><USER33> Volkswagen once got to be the world most valuable public traded company ...

</comment><comment><USER34> Short squeeze coming up?

<comment><USER35> They already got btfo a few months ago.

<comment><USER36> They get btfo every few months tho</comment></comment></comment>


Why the Sea Freight Industry Is So Broken - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/xeneta/why-the-sea-freight-industry-is-so-broken-151d95875140#.1jh7w37k4 <comment> o0-0o ? I just sold gsl for ~100% profit in the last week.</comment>


Vault Project - <AUTHOR> https://www.vaultproject.io/ <comment><USER2> Vault looks like a winner for managing environment variables and secrets for container orchestration. Rancher is adding support for it in the near future [1], and confd already has it integrated [2].

IMHO Hashicorp has a good track record of delivering quality products for devops (packer, vagrant) and their documentation is quite nice.

1\. [https://youtu.be/ZovLwCvb2Is?t=1h7m7s](https://youtu.be/ZovLwCvb2Is?t=1h7m7s)

2\. [https://github.com/kelseyhightower/confd/blob/master/docs/qu...](https://github.com/kelseyhightower/confd/blob/master/docs/quick- start-guide.md)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I submitted this after someone mentioning it here. It looks interesting, and I wanted to read some insights/reviews from the HN people. Is it something that could also be used as a password manager, or am I missig the point?

<comment><USER3> For personal use it's a total over kill...</comment></comment>


Show HN: DeepSense – Know people better through AI-built profiles - <AUTHOR> https://frrole.ai/deepsense-app <comment><USER3> I got this for Donald Trump, interesting:

" Personality Donald j. trump is a rather confident and stable person and usually keeps his emotions under check. not easily fazed by any situation, he is usually dependable under. He is a relatively positive individual and likes being around other people. He has a good social circle and can be assertive when needed. He is emotional and judgmental. He is likely to be compassionate, cooperative, even tempered and helpful and is sometimes taken advantage of because of his trusting nature."

<comment><USER4> Following is based on using his Twitter profile as an identifier:

"Donald J. Trump is a spontaneous individual and takes life as it comes. he generally dislikes coloring within the lines and does not stress over the little things but sometimes struggles with procrastination. He is a very dynamic individual who is easily excitable and sensitive. Passionate and impulsive, he wears his emotions on his sleeve. He is slightly emotional and judgmental. He is competitive and challenging as well as frank and believes in speaking his mind. He is a usually thoughtful individual who likes his space. He is extremely positive and optimistic."

SOURCE: [https://frrole.ai/deepsense- app/realDonaldTrump](https://frrole.ai/deepsense-app/realDonaldTrump)

<comment><USER5> I wonder if it filters out retweets in the analysis. Would be interesting to see the differential. Also the differential for media included (video and photos of thank you messages) vs the direct raw 6am-10am messages.

<comment><USER6> yes it does. More about filters in the api docs here: [http://api.frrole.com/v4/docs/user- profile](http://api.frrole.com/v4/docs/user-profile)

(warning: docs not fully updated yet. usual development to documentation lag:))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is actually a really hard problem to solve. At my company we have been working with several social data enrichment providers and even the "best" have a pretty high degree of error.

For what it's worth we just typed in a few "lesser-known" emails/twitter handles and it picked up relevant and accurate data.

I'm going to signup for an API key and fill out the contact form so we can talk to you guys. Is there any plan to support Instagram handles? Twitter seems to be the network of choice among services like these but I would argue Instagram data is much more valuable, especially when it comes to influencer marketing.

<comment><USER6> Thanks Ryan, this is not fully baked yet but def. not half-baked either. It will do what it is supposed to do.

Instagram is coming, and linkedin too. Soon, very!

<comment><USER8> Totally agree with Ryan, I signed up API email right away too. This is something dope @kalkat,great work!

<comment><USER6> thanks mate!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the profiles I've put in, I'm yet to see a single insightful response.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for trying DeepSense.

Are you not seeing any data for the profiles you've inputted? Or you didn't find the data useful?

Cheers!

<comment><USER9> I'm seeing general social media links, but very little content other than that. Almost no personality data for anyone I tried. If I put in a reasonably well-known HN user, email@example.com, I am struggling to see any insight at all being returned.

<comment><USER6> it relies on twitter data a good bit for personality insights Peter, so people you tried are not twitter users perhaps?

try a couple of random twitter users, don't have to be popular, if you just want to get a sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We people are funny; We're spend so much time and effort these days making things that help us know things about others without actually talking to them.

<comment><USER11> Not a bad idea for marketing though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If this is interesting to you, I suspect you'll find [https://www.crystalknows.com/](https://www.crystalknows.com/) even more interesting. (No association with the company whatsoever, just a happy user)

</comment><comment><USER13> I looked at kimkardashian which was already in the `recently analyzed by you`. It has a nice collection of information collected from a variety of social medias seems like.

Not sure what it is though, the overall idea doesn't sit well with me. I have very little social media presence (doesn't find me) and idk how niche profiles will be classified. (i might play around with it after my class). I'd like to know what are the pros of using stuff like this outside of research and academia. Is `AI` really at a state for corporations who don't understand the workings of these stuff to use the data provided by it to make real world choices?

<comment><USER6> The idea is to use "public" social data to build a secondary layer of intelligence that software products can use to personalize / be more consumer aware (primary layer is their captive data based intelligence).

We think that software has been more about automation of workflows so far, its time it started becoming intelligent.

P.S. replying, as i am the product owner for this:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> [https://frrole.ai/deepsense-app/realDonaldTrump](https://frrole.ai/deepsense- app/realDonaldTrump) Hilarious :)

<comment><USER15> The only insight I felt was interesting or useful was the chart of his interaction frequency / sentiment with other accounts. That was neat to see. Dude really hates The New York Times!

<comment><AUTHOR> He does. And CNN too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> From the responses here, it seems that astrology provides more useful insights.

<comment> V-2 Especially given the use of generic, meaningless phrases such as _" is sometimes taken advantage of because of his trusting nature"_. Generated profile can even be self-contradictory (I posted mine in another comment - <USER2> said both that I'm _" extremely negative and pessimistic"_ as well as _" a generally positive individual"_). Someone is jumping the AI bandwagon...

</comment></comment><comment> V-2 Based on my Twitter account, I learned that I'm "extremely negative and pessimistic", while "a generally positive individual". I'm also "even tempered" even though "emotional and judgmental".

(Full generated profile below) "[my Twitter user name] is quite compassionate, cooperative, even tempered and helpful and is sometimes taken advantage of because of his trusting nature. He is extremely negative and pessimistic. He is emotional and judgmental. He is a generally positive individual and likes being around other people. He has a good social circle and can be assertive when needed."

</comment><comment><USER17> So this is a bit of sentiment analysis coupled with analyzing direct relationships in the social network and looking for influencers? What usefulness do I get out of this and why should I ultimatively pay money for this?

<comment><USER6> yup just a bit of sentiment analysis, mood analysis, personality analysis, predicting how you would behave as an employee, as as an irate customer, determining your demographics, your social influence. Just those few bits:)

You should use this if you are a product manager whose product needs to know more attributes of its users. You can drop me a line at <username> AT frrole DOT com and i would be happy to walk you through the details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As if we didn't already have enough tools to judge & categorize people based on cursory, inconclusive, and superficial information.

</comment><comment><USER19> Put in my twitter handle and it told me I'm 26 (5 years off) and enjoy Ashton Kutcher (I follow him and like some of his tweets because they're about interesting startups)

It did provide links to my YouTube channel and Flickr profile that I had forgotten about which is sorta neat.

All of the other metrics were left blank.

<comment><USER6> Some things will be off Alex, a lot of it is algorithmic construction. Try it now, sometimes it takes more than a few seconds for the full profile to be constructed (if there is a queue etc)

<comment><USER20> >Try it now

Did you just update his profile there manually? :p

<comment><USER6> Ha. Funny. But obv. no:) Maybe try a few that you don't share here..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is this sort of analysis technically allowed by Twitter's ToS and Privacy Policy? Don't get me wrong, what you post on social media is public and that's that, but I know there are sometimes interesting rules around this sort of analysis.

<comment><USER6> "this sort of analysis" is a bit wide ranging, so can't comment, because some 'such' analysis might not sit pretty with twitter. But "this" is in line with policies, we in fact work with twitter and twitter is aware of this application.

This in fact has the potential to make twitter data useful for a new kind of user (product manager at a software product), so has the potential of making twitter useful for a sort of new segment of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I couldn't find a privacy policy or terms of service anywhere on their site.

<comment><USER6> This is a demo app. But yes, we should. point taken. thx.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Reminds me of this which was on show HN as well: [https://www.crystalknows.com/](https://www.crystalknows.com/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I am dazzled by the complete lack of any information.

<comment><USER6> you would be surprised that people have managed to work with a lot less ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is with this user activity plot?

[http://imgur.com/a/3dgCp](http://imgur.com/a/3dgCp)

<comment><USER26> It's the volume of the user's posts on social media over the months.

<comment><USER25> But why is it plotted with this arc bars. That is more than weird, isn't it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> You may need to watch out for the fair credit reporting act in generated these profiles.</comment>


Engine Yard's in great hands, and I've done what I wanted to do - <AUTHOR> http://lancewalley.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/engine-yards-in-great-hands-and-ive-done-what-i-wanted-to-do/

<comment><AUTHOR> The way I see it, your typical VC-backed startup needs 3 different teams from birth, to growth, to exit:

1\. startup team: visionary founders, mad hackers getting little sleep to push the envelope on the product, great bizdev, amazing product people that understand their market.

2\. growth team: operations people (ceo/mgmt team), larger engineering team to stabilize product and continue pushing features, more of everything.

3\. exit team: people with relationships in key positions that can then make the connection for acquisition/exit.

(This is all anecdotal and I'd love to be corrected)

<comment><USER2> I wish I could find more places in the first phase.

I was part of a startup that got acquired a while back and I can honestly say I miss the earlier days. :(

<comment><USER3> Are you a developer who lives in the bay area?

<comment><USER2> Yes. Although I don't get out much. :)

I'm also bound by golden handcuffs for a few years but I'm not sure I'm going to hang around that long anyways (options weren't worth much).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The curse of the entrepreneur: The more successful you are the less satisfied you get.

</comment><comment><USER5> should founders be going to investors saying "we're ready and willing to change gear" or "we're ready and willing to step out when we're ready to change to a growth team"?</comment>


A Python implementation of formal systems from the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexprengere/FormalSystems <comment><USER2> My implementation of M-I-U, more than 30 years ago, as a kid, in Turbo Pascal.

[https://github.com/ehud/MIU](https://github.com/ehud/MIU)

<comment><USER3> Didn't the original PC have lowercase? I thought I programmed TP in mixed- case, but can't remember.

<comment><USER4> I definitely programmed TP 1.0 in mixed case on a TRS-80 Model II running CP/M.

<comment><USER2> Sure. It was a style thing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For those not in the know, the first book ever bought from Amazon was Douglas Hofstadter's "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies : Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought"

<comment><USER6> Did he get that right or do neuroscientists dispute his models?

<comment><USER5> Most neuroscientists don't try to tackle such philosophical topics, unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here is an introduction to the MIU formal system for someone who hasn't read GEB.

[https://sirodoht.xyz/blog/the-miu-formal- system/](https://sirodoht.xyz/blog/the-miu-formal-system/)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for sharing. This is also a nice answer to the MU puzzle, mentioned at the end of the article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MU_puzzle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MU_puzzle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a related note, if you are interested in learning more about Godel and the Incompleteness Theorem and its significance, I recommend the book Incompleteness by Rebecca Goldstein.

</comment><comment><USER10> I remember doing this with pen and paper ages ago when I read the book. Somehow it clicked with me a lot better than my Abstract Algebra lectures.

<comment><USER11> I did that too; I remember the squares paper in the book. I see it in front of my eyes still. Good memories at some Portugal vacation with my parents in the 80s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Author here! Thanks for the post :)

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's some more Python related to the book (by a coworker):

[https://github.com/Quuxplusone/TNT](https://github.com/Quuxplusone/TNT)

</comment><comment><USER14> I once did an introductory talk to Agda that was structured around solving the MU problem, i.e. proving that MU is not derivable in MIU: [https://unsafePerform.IO/projects/agda/sg- meetup/SGMeetup.pd...](https://unsafePerform.IO/projects/agda/sg- meetup/SGMeetup.pdf) (the MIU bit starts in Part III, slide 46)

</comment><comment><USER15> Nice, I wrote code for MU as well. What about BlooP and friends?

<comment><USER16> There's only one of those "friends" (FlooP): Hofstadter explained that there is no more powerful "GlooP" language, because FlooP turns out to be as powerful as any computing formalism that can be implemented on a computer.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd be interested in seeing implementation of the machine learning systems from "fluid concepts"

<comment><USER18> Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies is a wonderful book. I wouldn't call the systems they build upon (such as lMetacat [1] and Tabletop [2]) "machine learning"...

[1] [http://science.slc.edu/jmarshall/metacat/](http://science.slc.edu/jmarshall/metacat/)

[2] [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/105891](https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/105891)

I'd also like to see FARGonauts / Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition style software implementations around... I have run with success this python implementation of Copycat:

[https://github.com/ajhager/copycat](https://github.com/ajhager/copycat)

<comment><USER19> A link on the book for other ignoramuses like me. Dunno how I've never heard of it.

(It's also by Douglas Hofstadter.)

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

<comment><USER17> Its maybe a matter of taste but I find his other work to be rather pretentious, although geb is entertaining and somewhat useful (I half liked le ton beau de marot).

I really think k there's something useful.in _fluid concepts_ that maybe can help with low data learning. I think geoffrey Hinton hints at it in his lecture about trying to do pca on learned neural states to find manyfold correlations which in high dimensional states are stronger to be nonrandom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> castle-bravo Where's typogenetics? :D

<comment><USER20> It'd be great to get all of DH's code online. Even the scratch and mistakes and half baked ideas and notes and...

heavy-breathing

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am not a mathematician but are there any others who have problems with Godel's 'Theorem'?

<comment><USER22> Why would you have problems with Gödel's incompleteness theorems (which are, I assume, the ones you are referring to), and why do you put 'theorem' in quotes as if they aren't actually theorems?

<comment><USER21> A sort of uneasiness about their symbolic basis to start off with, nothing subsequent - I can follow it. Lack of understanding. That 'it smells' feeling. I'm not suggest they are wrong, just asking. Its okay to ask?

<comment><USER23> Well perhaps you have the same problem as Whitehead and Russell? In GEB Hofstadter IIRC is quite harsh on them for their intellectual timidity in not being able to face the paradox inherent in Godel's Theorem...Paradoxes can "feel" uncomfortable.

<comment><USER24> That sufficiently capable logical systems are necessarily incomplete can be uncomfortable, especially if the beauty of completeness has been your lifelong goal.

But on the other hand, it's very cool that this provides an opening for consciousness and free will to arise.

<comment> castle-bravo How are consciousness and free will implied by incompleteness of formal systems?

<comment><USER24> I defer to Douglas Hofstadter:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Comeback of the Mac - <AUTHOR> http://muensteraner.net/mac-comeback/

<comment><USER2> You can't explain the comeback of the Mac if you cling to the assumption that Microsoft products are cheaper and better for getting "real work" done. (rendered here as "tool for a specific task" vs. "leisure".)

You can get a Mac desktop for $600 and a laptop for $1000-2000, and the prices are going down every year. These aren't cheapo versions of Apple's more expensive offerings, either, they're the real deal, with better hardware design than pretty much any PC laptop. And they run Windows.

How cheap do people expect a computer to be?

<comment><AUTHOR> A cheap notebook would be around 350 bucks. You can get "real work" done with them (like with any Macbook) but it's no fun to use them in the living room on the sofa.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a total opportunity here for a third operating system to make a desktop play - but no one seems to be interested in doing one.

Ubuntu? Window of opportunity has passed & Canonical doesn't seem interested in desktop market.

Chrome OS? Awesome as a browser+netbook, but a bit limited for some people's tastes.

Really, if a company like Google had been able to produce a true and full operating system, with Ubuntu/Linux extensibility and the beauty of Mac OS/ChromeOS, they could have come up with a winner ... but it hasn't happened yet.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's because of VMware Fusion and Parallels. Simple.

My next system will probably be a Mac primarily running Windows 7 or 8 where I'm currently the most invested. The ability to have both in the same box justifies the extra cost of a Mac to me. My older XP music production system is actually a VMware Fusion virtual machine running on an older MacBook and used mostly for the XP apps.

Both integrate flawlessly on my home network where I use TeamViewer to access them from what is currently my main Windows machine.

<comment><USER5> Actually it's because of Virtualbox. I just bought a Macbook Pro a couple of weeks ago to do some iOS native app development and Virtualbox is one of the first things that I installed. I already have my Ubuntu VM and my Windows 7 VM up and running, ready for when I need to do some work that is OS specific.

Not to say that there is anything wrong with VMWare or Parallels, its just that I happen to like Virtualbox and have used it on Linux and Windows as well.

I was originally planning on getting a used machine but when I looked at the prices of new ones and compared prices, the difference was just too small to take the risks of non-warranty hardware.

<comment><USER4> Silly me. I didn't even know that Virtualbox existed for the Mac. I too like it a lot in the windows environment and use it to play with Chrome OS. I'll have to give the Mac version a look. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it's because a MacBook is a high quality device, and you can install other OSes on relatively pain free.

Also OSX covers the bases well, both for regular users and developers. One noteworthy group that are left out are the gamers.

<comment><USER7> I don't know what your pain threshold is, but installing & running any blend of Linux on a recent Macbook is not exactly a fun time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For the first time in forever I have a Mac as my primary work computer. (Granted with Windows on VM for a few things) I converted from Wintel at home back to Mac about 3 years ago, and I was a relatively later adopter.

</comment><comment><USER9> I would bet the success of the iphone and ipad play into this as well.

FWIW: I'm a developer and after being on a Macbook Pro with a Retina display for over a year I can't imagine working on anything else.

<comment><USER10> Also, don't forget the ecosystem.

        Want to buy a song? iTune, 1 click and start listening
        Want to install development tool? brew install
        Want to install other tools? brew cask install
        Want to buy software? App store, 1 click
        Want to listen to music on your big ass speaker? Airplay, click and done

<comment><USER5> I don't believe that things are so simple. Some things are not in a repo like Homebrew or MacPorts. Personally I chose to use MacPorts for UNIX world tools. I installed STS Eclipse from their site. Same with AppCode. There are other things that you need to go and hunt for.

Even on Linux, which has arguably the best package repo systems, you still need to go to upstream for important tools because the distros lag behind.</comment></comment></comment>


War Is Peace: Can science fight media disinformation? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=war-is-peace

<comment><USER2> As a lover of science and a longtime skeptic throughout a series of changes of political viewpoint, I've learned to hate when anyone tries to wrap his/her political viewpoint in the mantle of "science" or "skepticism" (as opposed to proper understanding of a scientific issue). I've yet to see anyone do this without the upshot being, "Yes, the political beliefs I already had [whatever they were] are shown to be _objectively correct_ \- thanks to Science!"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> _"... English novelist George Orwell was remarkably prescient about many things, and one of the most disturbing aspects of his masterpiece 1984 involved the blatant perversion of objective reality, using constant repetition of propaganda by a militaristic government in control of all the media. ..."_

I added this article to highlight a new phase in science that is occurring - advocacy. Why advocacy and not just science? Because it's getting to the point where mere _"facts"_ isn't good enough to bring about the changes necessary.

It's not the science where the problems lie. Science can be refuted by bad evidence. Scientific theory becomes fact when the evidence gathered by observation or experiments be supports the theory. The problem we have now is a _"people"_ problem where people who don't see or want changes made to our carbon economy.

The change from pure science and scientific reporting to scientific activism is a feature of more active scientists in recent history and include Richard Dawkins (evolution,religion), Tim Flannery (land use,disruption of ecosystems, carbon emissions). In the past dissent, contrary arguments would not have been tolerated. In Galileo's ~ [http://www-history.mcs.st- and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Galileo.h...](http://www-history.mcs.st- and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Galileo.html) day scientists with ideas like Dawkins and Flannery would have been quietly silenced like Galileos advocacy ~ <http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/galileo.html> of the Copernican principle ~ <http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/copercosmol.html>

Why?

Because it didn't fit with the plans of those in power at the time, Pope Urban VIII. Charles Darwin ~ [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/darwin_charles...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/darwin_charles.shtml) withheld releasing "The Origin of the species" for 20 years even with the amount of evidence because of the potential for persecution ~ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Time_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Time_taken_to_publish)

Presenting the science is not enough to create change in the way leaders make decisions. Decisions based on some _"rational"_ basis instead of _"belief"_ or _"influence"_.

</comment><comment><USER3>
         What makes people so susceptible to nonsense in public
         discourse? Is it because we do such a miserable job in
         schools teaching what science is all about—that it is not a
         collection of facts or stories but a process for weeding
         out nonsense to get closer to the underlying beautiful
         reality of nature? Perhaps not. But I worry for the future
         of our democracy if a combination of a free press and
         democratically elected leaders cannot together somehow more
         effectively defend empirical reality against the onslaught
         of ideology and fanaticism.

<comment><USER4> What I don't get: "As I listen to the manifest nonsense that has been promulgated by the likes of right-wing fanatic radio hosts and moronic ex- governors in response to the effort to bring the U.S. into alignment with other industrial countries in providing reasonable and affordable health care for all its citizens, it seems that things have only gotten worse in the years since I first wrote those words."

First, this idea that "right-wing fanatic radio hosts and moronic ex- governors" have a monopoly on bad science is at best arrogant and at worst remarkably deceptive. Second, what is the Scientific American doing writing about advocacy for public healthcare in the first place? Nevermind the vast array of policy alternatives that this space entails, or that the bills presented before congress now do little to nothing to meet the original objectives even President Obama set.

This piece is breathtaking on so many levels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Scientific American is a left-wing rag. I read it regularly as a teen ager, but quit in the 1980s when EVERY ISSUE had a prominent pseudo-scientific article advancing lefty causes, primarily disarmament.

</comment><comment><USER6> Flagged, because there is no new information in the article, its purely political.

<comment><USER7> I'd hardly call Scientific American a political magazine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "I cannot stress often enough that what science is all about is not proving things to be true but proving them to be false."

Science can prove negatives now? That's news to me.

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

<comment><USER9> Perhaps instead of spouting articles without understanding you should read a bit about falsation and Karl Popper's contributions to the philosophy of science.

Falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method.</comment></comment>


Return to the Edge and The End of Cloud Computing - <AUTHOR> http://a16z.com/2016/12/16/the-end-of-cloud-computing/ <comment><USER2> And what's going to power this wonderful world of edge computing??

Miracle power cells??</comment>


Getting drunk in North Korea - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/getting-drunk-in-north-korea/279310/ <comment><USER2> As a South Korean living abroad, I am regularly asked about North Korea by curious foreigners despite having no special expertise on the subject besides having followed the news all my life by the virtue of being from the south of the DMZ. One of the most difficult things to convey, even to fellow South Koreans, is the fact that North Korea is as complex as any human society. For most people, North Korea is the very definition of the Great Unknown, and we tend to imagine such things as monoliths (it is incredible for instance how many outsiders seem to picture Africa as one giant mass of starvation, disease, and war, and are astonished to see anything that doesn't fit the preconception like bustling modern cities with a thriving middle class).

It is easy to describe the lack of freedoms, cult of personality, massive prison camps, the _songbun_ caste system and total lack of civil society in North Korea, leaving the curious foreigner shaking her head at the bizarreness and monstrosity of it all. But it is also easy to forget that this is a society inhabited by flesh and blood humans, not ruthless robots and their abstract oppressed victims. We don't get to see much of this side of course. But in some ways in the last decade or so North Korea has been creeping towards something close to normalcy, albeit far from ideal—corrupt officials, flourishing black markets, extreme disparities in wealth, and even cross- border trade with China. Nothing to portend a Soviet-style collapse of course, but even the slightest increase in openness is something we should welcome.

</comment><comment><USER3> My favorite book about the DPRK is Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea ([http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives- ebook/dp/B...](http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Envy-Ordinary-Lives- ebook/dp/B002ZB26AO/)).

I'm hopeful that the DPRK is moving toward modernity, but if the stories from that book are anywhere close to the truth, they are still by far the most evil regime on the planet.

<comment><USER4> Even though I liked the book. I was not a big fan of story telling style.

> far the most evil regime on the planet.

That should be reserved for The American Empire. IMHO.

<comment><USER5> You never see these comments on the DPRK articles mentioning the torture, mass executions, widespread starvation, and labor camps. Just on the lighter ones about visiting the country.

<comment><USER6> > torture

waterboarding, etc

> mass executions

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraq...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties)

drone strikes, etc.

> widespread starvation

[http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger- facts/chi...](http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child- hunger-facts.aspx)

People aren't dying here, so it's not the same, but 16.7 million children lived in food insecure households in 2011... not to mention that _we_ have a lot to do with DPRK starvation and famine.

> labor camps

Private prisons, Guantanamo Bay, etc.

I actually found this quote from the article to be quite good:

> It's simplistic to dismiss North Koreans as brainwashed masses; in fact, we > have more in common than we think.

<comment><USER7> Be careful. When you stretch that far you can injure your back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While there's no doubt that North Korea's regime is cruel and oppressive, and that they're very poor by generally accepted standards of measuring wealth, I've also seen quite a few documentaries suggesting that North Korea is also very different than how we view it.

I've seen one where a tourist sneaks a video camera into the DPRK, and manages to take quite a bit of video, and in many ways they're not so different from us. In most ways, actually.

They drink, go out for picnics, celebrate holidays, and do alot of the 'normal' things we do. The country looks clean, and the people aren't all walking skeletons.

I think the truth about DPRK is somewhere in between our western propaganda, and the communist propaganda... With a bit of sci-fi weirdness thrown in for good measure...

<comment><USER9> Even with "sneaking in a video camera," most outsiders are only allowed a view of North Korea that doesn't see the bad things. I know there are instances of people seeing parts of the country that aren't on the guided tour, but these are few and far-between, and usually don't include foreigners given free reign to wander over the country-side to see what they can see.

<comment><USER10> Yeah. Taking photos they'd rather one didn't has gotten people doing hard labor for a decade and a half.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's very common for foreigners staying at that hotel to get drunk every night. There is no internet, no other recreations and you aren't allowed to leave the hotel. And their home brewed beer is actually pretty good.

Surprised they never mentioned the bowling alley / video game parlour which is hugely popular amongst the children of the well to do.

</comment><comment><USER12>
      "Governments in Communist countries often resort to subsidizing alcohol in order to keep people happy," Petrov explains.

My impression of the Soviet alcohol policy was actually the other way around - alcohol was tightly regulated and sold at high markups, which (maybe not surprisingly) was a barrier to actual attempts to reduce alcoholism, since the state budget was so dependent on the sales.</comment>


Skylake CPUs have 'inverse Hyper Threading' to boost single-thread performance - <AUTHOR> http://www.myce.com/news/skylake-cpus-have-inverse-hyper-threading-to-boost-single-thread-performance-77011/ <comment><USER2> An interesting idea to ponder, but this isn't a feature present in Skylake or any other processor Intel has announced. The German language source cited in this link retracted their guess a few days later: [http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/IDF-2015-Intel- enthue...](http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/IDF-2015-Intel-enthuellt- ein-wenig-die-Skylake-Architektur-2784862.html)

"Inverses Hyper-Threading, wie hier aufgrund von merkwürdigen Messergebnissen spekuliert wurde, unterstützt der Skylake indes nicht."

"Inverse Hyper-Threading, as was speculated here due to strange measurement results, is not supported by Skylake."

Here's some English language reporting about the retraction:

"However, Intel has dismissed rumors of Inverse Hyper Threading being present on the Skylake die, something that we talked previously as being a cutting edge methodology of single-thread computing boosting via multi-core help. We expected an answer on this matter at IDF and Intel unfortunately dismisses it as being false. Recent studies made by Heise.de showed incredible single- thread computing performance by the new Core i7-6700K and speculated that Inverse Hyper Threading might be present on the new Skylakes. Apparently, it was not."

[http://news.softpedia.com/news/intel-reveals-the-skylake- inn...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/intel-reveals-the-skylake- innards-489560.shtml)

<comment><USER3> Yes I remember the heise reports as well and it was super speculative back then. BTW, your English translation is good. May I ask if that is just with high school German class or have you been to Germany?

<comment><USER2> I'm American and took a year of German in college, but I cheated here. I scanned the page to find the right sentence, and then copy-and-pasted it into Google Translate. Then I fixed up the English to sound better while trying to stay faithful to the phrasing in German. Without Google's starting point, I'd have been guessing a lot, and probably wouldn't have shared a translation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I strongly believe that if this feature exists Intel would be making a big deal of it to get people to upgrade - not hide it. Therefor this is nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER5> The article is entirely speculative. Another entire speculative explanation would be that Skylake simply has better power management allowing single cores to operate at much higher frequencies when other cores are disabled.

Occam's razor (and my background in hardware design and high performance computing) would definitely make me bet my money on the above speculation :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Or it might just be that when multiple cores are in use, thermal considerations require throttling back from full performance?

<comment><USER7> That wouldn't explain the jump in performance between generations of processors.

<comment><USER8> The change from 22nm to 14nm would.

<comment><USER7> Smaller lithography means less heat dissipation, but the frequency hasn't gone up, the processors executes the same number of instructions per second, doesn't it?

<comment><USER9> Recent Intel CPUs with Turbo Boost have a frequency range they can operate on, with a spread of over one GHz for some models. Thermal limits dictate how much of this buffer the CPU is able to use, so better thermals do lead to higher frequencies used.

<comment><USER7> I am a bit outside of my area of confidence but isn't the turbo frequency the max frequency advertised by intel on the CPU? There is not a ratio of 2.5 between these two models so it can only explain a fraction of the delta.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Seven months old. If there were any truth to these claims, more convincing evidence would have surfaced by now.

</comment><comment><USER10> Had my hopes up for a short while... You'll loose in Dwarf Fortress sooner or later due to "FPS-death" and DF is single-core only.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is it possible there are shared units between cores? Not a hardware expert but like shared arithmetic units or the like.

<comment><USER8> Shared units between cores can be done and has been done, by AMD. It's hard; AMD didn't do a great job of it. Intel didn't even try.

<comment><USER9> And AMD has given up on it, their next-gen Zen CPU will use a more hyperthreading-alike architecture.

Only caches and memory/IO controllers are usually shared between cores.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My guess is an architecture change that allows more of the 'shared' resources to be used by a single core rather than rigidly enforcing a subdivision of the resources between each core.

Sort of like if you had 2MB of cache per core vs a shared 8MB cache between 4 cores.</comment>


Getting Your Kids Off the iPad Is Worth the Fight - <AUTHOR> https://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/getting-your-kids-off-the-ipad-is-worth-the-fight-191447400.html <comment><USER2> The trick is not getting them on in the first place.</comment>


Google Kills the Goo.gl URL Shortener - <AUTHOR> https://9to5google.com/2019/04/01/google-spring-cleaning-death-inbox-allo/ <comment><USER2> I was going to say "How dare they break stuff!" but FTA:

>existing links for goo.gl will continue to work indefinitely, but new ones can't be created.

So... ok.</comment>


Show HN: TorrentPeek – Distributed search engines using BitTorrent and SQLite - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lmatteis/torrent-peek/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> Do I understand this correctly - you're essentially replacing the file system with BitTorrent, as opposed to replacing the database with BitTorrent?

Either way, nice work. I'm sure some future Tim Berners Lee will do something crazy cool on top of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. The database syntax is the same. You're still writing SQL queries against the SQLite engine. I'm just replacing disk-access with network-piece- access.

TorrentPeek goes one step further and puts this idea to use in sites, where interactions on an HTML page can be programmed to perform queries. Instead of AJAX calls, you get these sqltorrent calls.

<comment><USER3> This is interesting and reminds me of Zeronet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does it only work on macOS if it's based on Node? Seems like they could have gotten it to work on Windows and Linux.

<comment><AUTHOR> The main reason that there are no binaries for Windows/Linux it's because I don't have these machines to compile the project against. I will eventually create binaries for all platforms. Letting it compile by node (node-gyp) would require me to distribute all of libtorrent/sqlite/boost sources which could be feasible - I'll investigate on that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there indication when the result list for a given query is 'complete'?

Otherwise if the search result don't look like what the person wanted, how long should they wait to see if it pops in? Until the whole DB is downloaded?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Yes the SQLite engine returns an SQLITE_OK value when the query is complete, just like if it were a database file on disk.

The insight here is that we can tell SQLite (via VFS) to talk torrent-pieces rather than disk-pages, so we can essentially query torrents (torrents containing an SQLite database) on demand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do you think something like this could be used for some form of a distributed blob store that you can query? Things like package managers could use this effectively.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. The SQLite database can virtually contain anything. TorrentPeek is about sites, but there's nothing stopping you from using it to store information about software packages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me a lot of the (I think) very underrated YaCy project: [http://yacy.net/en/index.html](http://yacy.net/en/index.html)

I know there are a ton of technical reasons why this is difficult, but web- scraping and the like always seemed like a problem that could be done fairly elegantly with distributed systems.

<comment><USER8> AFAIK YaCy "peers" are just instances of solr doing search/indexing on their own (as set by the user) and the "distributed search" page only redirects the user to one of the available peers with external port open, not much p2p going on.

It requires a lot of resources with little to show for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is really cool.

From the readme it sounds like there's a community of people working on this problem. How much of this is stuff you built from scratch versus libraries you used to create the search engine?

I'm wondering what's the minimum set of items I'd need to copy over to reproduce this technology :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually I'm not sure about the "community". The credit for this idea goes mostly to the person behind [https://github.com/bittorrent/sqltorrent](https://github.com/bittorrent/sqltorrent) \- but I don't think there are projects using this technique just yet.

I'm hoping TorrentPeek can become something like ZeroNet eventually - or maybe the ZeroNet guys can incorporate this technique in their project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Neat, both this and sqltorrent. I'll have to read up on this in more detail...

Does this mean you (essentially) need to download the index before doing any searches? Or is there trickery to minimize even the FTS index pieces you need?

<comment><AUTHOR> No you don't need to download the indexes beforehand. The download always starts from the first piece/page (0). From there it essentially performs binary search and only downloads the least amount of pieces possible in order to satisfy the query.

SQLite is already optimized to minimize disk-seeks, so it already knows to do the bear minimum amount of reads - which translates great for even slower I/O such as this (network access is much slower than disk access).

<comment><USER10> Huh. So it's basically just a torrent-VFS, and sqlite already plays nicely? Neat application though! Seems like it works really well :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, and it's also HTML/CSS/JS for site owners to program interactions of their site using SQL queries that are prioritized against the underlying torrent.

Imagine sharing wikipedia dumps, along with an index.html page. TorrentPeek will render the index.html and expose a `sqlTorrentQuery(yourQuery)` method so that site owners can program the site around that.

You'd be able to do stuff like:

      <form onSubmit=() =>
        sqlTorrentQuery('SELECT * FROM wikipedia MATCH ' + this.value + ' LIMIT 50;'),
          result => console.log(result))> ... </form>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The repository seems to contain a lot of garbage (such as an `a.out` file and a `reddit-browser` folder).

This look like a really cool project. Could you please clean up the repo so that other people can easily try it out?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes sorry about that. The project is still an experiment, mostly used to get real world numbers on the feasibility of the idea. I intend to maintain it and develop it much further so I will definitely clean it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So if I am not mistaken this only works well when a query is well indexed?

<comment><AUTHOR> You mean when the database is well indexed? Yes. SQLite supports Full Text Search ([https://sqlite.org/fts5.html](https://sqlite.org/fts5.html)) which builds all the indexes for you, allowing you to perform search-engine-like functionality.

But you're right, it does require more attention towards index construction for site owners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Cool idea! Surprised that SQLite can know exactly which pieces it will need to answer any query!

<comment><USER14> Without indexes, SQLite will do a table scan of sorts, which would still require all pages (=torrent pieces) that have data for a particular table. With indexes however this can be a lot smarter (client likely only needs a few pages from the index for a single query).

<comment><USER15> You still need to walk the tree, so you don't know which pages you need immediately- but since the root pages for the indexes should be well- distributed in the swarm, it shouldn't take very long to figure out which leaves you need.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. I ran real world numbers. Before getting a result you still have to download on average ~20 pieces (32KB * 20 = 640KB). With healthy swarms and a 500kb/s connection you should get results as soon as ~1 second.

<comment><USER16> Is 640KiB not the whole index? Because partial download would mean having to request new pieces based on the previously-downloaded ones, adding latency to the mix. Assuming just 50ms latency, for 20 packets that would account for a whole second before seeing a result. And 20 decisions seems a lot, though I don't know how the index works.

What bothers me is that you've rounded the time down in your calculation despite ignoring throughput factors like packet overhead, piece message metadata, other protocol messages and processing time. I'd be interested to see some real time measurements. If you decide to do it (maybe for a research paper?), consider using kibis explicitly (and mind capitalization - b vs B).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> where is the source code?</comment>


Michael Crichton on Happiness - <AUTHOR> http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-redbook-happiness.html

<comment><USER2> "Similarly, buying things doesn't make anybody happy."

This was obviously written before the iPhone.</comment>


Naked-Image Scanners to Be Removed From U.S. Airports - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/naked-image-scanners-to-be-removed-from-u-s-airports.html <comment><USER3> As long as they've got guys randomly swabbing old folks' palms to test for bomb-making materials, and all of the other ridiculous trespasses on personal dignity that comprise their much maligned "security theatre," I won't be flying. Amtrak may have a few threatening "see it, say it" signs at the station, but at least they treat me like a customer and not a maniac.

<comment><USER4> Some of us who travel between continents don't have that luxury.

TSA already monitors Amtrack:

[http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa- vipr-...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/06/opinion/don-phillips-tsa-vipr- teams/index.html)

Due to the broad description of the organization's purpose, it gives them overreaching powers allowing them to secure any mode of transportation. This has led to the TSA expanding its presence and showing up at NFL games:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-elliott/the-tsa- wa...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-elliott/the-tsa-wants-to-be- every_b_2393332.html)

Edit: For those commenting about NFL game presence without reading the linked article...

      > Few people know that $105 million of their taxpayer dollars are going to fund
      > 37 VIPR teams in 2012, whose purpose is to "augment" the security of any mode
      > of transportation. They don't realize that these VIPR teams can show up
      > virtually anytime, anywhere and without warning, subjecting you to a search
      > of your vehicle or person.

<comment><USER5> I love it. I encourage their presence at NFL games. I hope they give football fans a full body cavity search. Let Joe Sixpack endure their absurdity and maybe we'll actually see progress toward ending the TSA.

<comment><USER6> I've been more violated entering NFL games than going through airport security, on average.

The problem is that the American people want to do _anything_ about terrorists, crime or "for the children" at the expense of our civil liberties. It's entirely irrational. TSA at NFL games will not even remotely begin to change that.

There was a bit of an uproar about the increased security measures at NFL stadiums some years ago but it died down and things went on as usual.

<comment><USER7> I haven't been in the US for just over a decade. What is keeping Americans so concerned about terrorists all this time later?

<comment><USER8> Fox News, largely. You know how you see all sorts of ridiculous inaccuracies and jokes at Fox News's expense on the Internet? That's the most-watched news source in the United States.

<comment><USER9> It can't be blamed on Fox News any longer. They're still cheerleaders for the "War on Terror", but these wars now belong to the current president. Do you see other news outlets questioning the current president's military occupations, drone attacks, etc?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Or rather, after reading the article, _some_ naked-image scanners to be removed, and then promptly replaced with others from a different company. No big news here, as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER11> The replacement scanners are not backscatter radiation units and they display an icon of a person with a little dot that lights up to highlight where the little icon man has an anomaly.

<comment><USER12> And for all I know, a highly accurate 3D representation of my body is being stored in a database for future identification.

I realize that's bordering on tin-foil hat land, but it's why I opt out every time, and will continue to do so...

<comment><USER13> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html>

They told us they wouldn't store the images on the previous scanners, but it turns out they were.

<comment><USER14> The generic government response to criticism of these scanners has been that they aren't stored, but (as far as I know) the only agency that has out-and- out said they aren't storing them is the TSA. In this case (the article), the U.S. Marshals Service was storing the images at a courthouse security checkpoint.

1\. Did the U.S. Marshals Service claim that they weren't storing the images prior to this discovery?

2\. Do you know of any examples of the TSA storing the images (in opposition to what they have claimed they do)?

<comment><USER15> Why exactly do you feel you have to make lame excuses for the government? We live in the information age and information now is the ultimate power. The high level politicians and bureaucrats are clearly maniacs when it comes to power. IMHO there is no doubt that all information that can potentially be used in a power struggle, such as Rapiscan scans, is not destroyed, but stored by some government agency. Those scans can be used to reliably identify tents of millions of people.

<comment><USER14> I'm not making lame excuses for the government. At no point did I say that it was ok for them to store the images. My point was that this statement:

      They told us they wouldn't store the images on the
      previous scanners, but it turns out they were.

was disingenuous. Saying that 'they lied about storing the images' has no basis in truth here (at least without presenting other evidence that I'm unaware of).

I don't know about you, but I don't think that there's any reason to make misleading statements in order to present the case that these images shouldn't be stored.

<comment><USER15> Right, CIA and NSA never said they are not going to store the images, so it's perfectly fine with you ...

<comment><USER14> The point is that making misleading comments (or outright lying) is only going to hurt your cause. People will ignore the message (no matter how right it may be) and attack your methods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Article doesn't say it, but the Rapiscan scanners are x-ray backscatter based, about which there are significant health concerns. The L-3 (ProVision) scanners are millimeter wave based.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray>

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

I wonder if the privacy issue is a cover story.

<comment><USER17> Actually, the article does say it---just above the heading for "Privacy concerns".

It also says, near the end, that of the new contracts, two are with companies that use millimeter-wave, and one is with a company that uses backscatter.

So the privacy thing probably isn't just a cover story, or at least not for the X-ray issue.

<comment><USER18> It's sad (but unsurprising) that the machines are being removed for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure if you're trolling? The machines are being removed precisely due to concerns over safety and effectiveness.

Efficiency is the number one reason they are being removed, as stated by the TSA. The backscatter machines produce an R-rated image of the person being scanned. This requires secondary personnel to view the image in a separate area and then communicate back to the primary personnel at the checkpoint. TSA asked Rapidscan to write software which could render a non-R-rated image which could be displayed and interpreted at the checkpoint, but Rapidscan could not or would not.

If you have studied HCI, the simplicity and efficiency of the interface is highly correlated with the ability of the user to complete a designated task. Making the checkpoint more efficient increases TSA personnel's ability to accomplish their objectives.

The UI of the ProVision is specifically designed for 'non-experts' -- it shows a simple stick figure and a bright colored box for any area of the body that triggers an alert. What could be easier to interpret? You can even look at your own results as you walk through.

Whether or not you're a fan of TSA, whether you believe the increased efficiency is simply a face-saving excuse to get the "naked body scanners" out of there, the TSA's rightfully concluded the ProVision (RF, non-ionizing) scanners are a superior product, and everyone should be happier to get to walk through them rather than the X-ray based machines.

Personally I'd be happier not having to queue and walk through any fixed scanner... and they are working on airport designs which will make that a reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The machines served their purpose: they were purchased. Doesn't matter if they get used. It's now time to move onto the next security item that can be purchased for millions of dollars.

<comment><USER21> From the third paragraph:

"It will now get rid of the remaining 174 Rapiscan machines, _with the company absorbing the cost_ "

<comment><USER22> uh, did I read that right?

CEO Deepak Chopra?!

The quantum potential of infinite possibilities...

"OSI Systems is "pleased to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the TSA" that will involve moving the machines to other government agencies, Chief Executive Officer Deepak Chopra said in a statement. "

<comment><USER23> Quoting greenyoda from below:

> Note that Deepak Chopra, the CEO of OSI Systems (the scanner manufacturer in > the article), is not the same person as Deepak Chopra, the alternative > medicine doctor.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(disambiguation)>

<comment><USER24> And yet, they're both selling dubious solutions to problems they've invented. What are the odds?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Super incomplete headline by bloomberg.

ONE kind of naked scanner is being replaced with ANOTHER.

And then the existing naked scanner is being kept in service just at different locations like courthouses.

Absolutely nothing has changed, extraordinary amounts of taxpayer money still changing hands.

</comment><comment><USER26> Note that Deepak Chopra, the CEO of OSI Systems (the scanner manufacturer in the article), is not the same person as Deepak Chopra, the alternative medicine doctor.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(disambiguation)>

<comment><USER27> please don't help perpetuate the phrase "alternative medicine", if it was effective, it would just be called "medicine". A better description would be "Deepak Chopra, the charlatan"

<comment><USER15> I have no idea who this guy is, but often "alternative medicine" is very effective. In poorer countries it's often performed by smart professionals, who are using experience accumulated over centuries or even millennia - <USER2> plants help what conditions, etc.

<comment><USER28> Professions who help people just by listening. It has been shown that most of the positive benefit people experience from many of these therapies is just the fact of having someone that cares (or at least appears to) listen to your problems for an hour and provide support.

<comment> mkr-hn Palliative care is a part of mainstream medicine: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palliative_care>

Another example of real alternative medicine becoming mainstream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What I don't get is the 1973 court decision allowing these searches: "In 1973 the 9th Circuit Court rules on U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908, there are key pieces of wording that give the TSA its power to search essentially any way they choose to. The key wording in this ruling includes "noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft [...] [an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly." " (source: [http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how-...](http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/20/how- the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/))

So our forefathers obviously intended "reasonable searches" to include strip- searching the entire population of travelers to ensure they are not bearing arms. Riiight. According to Wikipedia ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Colonial_America) ), in colonial America the government regularly searched houses and seized property without warrants (general searches) to enforce taxes. There was a legal battle over this, AND \--->>> John Adams viewed it as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.

Seriously, how in the world can we be so ignorant as to ignore our history and try to enforce constitutional amendments without sensible historical context.

<comment><USER30> Lawyer here. The administrative search exception to the fourth amendment means that an administrative agency can search to enforce an administrative regulation without a warrant. The most common example of this that everyone would understand is a county health department inspecting a restaurant licensed to sell food to the public.

In other words, because a restaurant has submitted to the licensing scheme of a county, it impliedly gives the county the right to search it without a warrant. Consider how a county health department could do its inspections if it had to get a warrant to do so each time it needed to.

So, in essence, in the case above, the Supreme Court is saying that since you're submitting to the government's regulations by choosing to fly, they don't need a warrant to search you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is recycled content from last October. Past discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4674309>

I will mention that IAD airport in TSA's backyard still have a complete array of Rapiscan scanners, with no sign of being replaced. Each scanner is slightly rotated away from the next. One might postulate that the xray leakage off to the sides of the scanners would have a compounding effect on TSA workers if the scanners were arranged perfectly in line.

</comment><comment><USER32> Many times I've flown with knives in my carry-on without realizing it until after the flight. Why go through all this security when it doesn't even work? Makes me suspicious it's all for show and to fill some company's pockets.

<comment><USER33> You could walk through the security check without an knives, and sneak a bit of glass out of an airport bar on the other side. Why bother with knives, when you can make a prison shiv using things you can buy just before boarding a plane?

The real answers to hijacking are (1) locking the cabin door from the inside and (2) passengers understanding that they are not just going to be flown to Cuba. The security checkpoints are almost entirely useless.

<comment><USER34> Why would I bother sneaking a bit of airport glass when I can just go to a Applechili's, order a steak, and keep the silverware?

<comment><USER33> I suppose it depends on your airport; my local one is a tiny regional airport with a bar but not many opportunities to score some silverware. In the end, if your evil plot requires silverware, I suppose you would just go to a larger airport; the nearest international airport is only 2 hours away from here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Am I the only one who reads "Rapiscan" as "Rapey-scan"...?

<comment><USER36> No, that did seem rather a poor choice of names to me too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Simple solution: Opt out of the naked scanners, every time. I've gotten used to the pat downs and they don't bother me at all. I just give myself an extra 10-15 minutes lead time when arriving at the airport.

<comment><USER37> I do this every time, but it always ends up feeling futile. I'm just waiting for the day when "opting-out" is no longer permitted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> They're still not removing the body scanners entirely though, just the ones that can't display a generic outline. The privacy violations and radiation exposure will continue.

<comment><USER11> _…radiation exposure will continue…_

The L-3 Communications scanners are millimeter wave. They do not share the possible dangers of the backscatter machines.

<comment><USER39> I don't doubt that health harms are minimal if any, but every time I go through these I get a very weird sensation in my torso which I'm just not fond of, so I've started opting out since December.

I personally don't mind the patdown at all, and the TSA personnel have all been professional each time I've requested to opt out. I do wonder what would happen if a significant minority started opting out, since that would most likely clog the system pretty badly.

<comment><USER40> I've opted out every time I've ever ended up in a scanner line, but the millimeter wave stuff is absolutely significantly more safe than the backscatter, specifically because it doesn't use ionizing radiation.

Of course, it's also easily defeated[1][2] by anyone that knows what they're doing, so it's not like it's keeping us particularly safe.

[1] [http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of- nude-...](http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/1b-of-nude-body- scanners-made-worthless-by-blog-how-anyone-can-get-anything-past-the-tsas- nude-body-scanners/)

[2] [http://americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights- failings...](http://americablog.com/2010/01/german-tv-highlights-failings-of- body-scanners.html)

<comment><USER41> That TSA Out of our Pants guy seems pretty smart!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Naked doesn't bother me, it's the radiation from x-ray based scanners.

<comment><USER43> I thought I'd heard that the radiation dose was on the order of what you'd get from 2 minutes of your airline flight. [1] I was far more worried about the nude photos, and always opted out before the backscatter machines were replaced with millimeter-wave. "Being groped is uncomfortable for 5 minutes; having nude photos floating around some TSA agent's computer is uncomfortable for a lifetime."

[1] [http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...](http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm227201.htm#2)

<comment> X-Istence Until there is independent 3rd-party verification that indeed the radiation dose is that what I get from flying for 2 minutes, I won't trust the TSA telling me so, or the company that is making billions of the machines.

Skin cancer, as well as various other cancers run in my family, I don't want to risk it.

Although, coming back from Europe to the US nothing says "Welcome to flying back to the US" than a grope from some security guy at Amsterdam airport that is paid to be there because the US initiated new rules requiring all flights to the US to have RapiScan machines for full-body imaging, or the grope at the first arriving airport with my connecting flight back to the city I live in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> As a non-american, i'm curious (& supportive). When are you going to get together and drop your TSA?

Could you band together this year and get rid of it?

<comment><USER45> If only we the people had that kind of power. Unfortunately we've submitted ourselves to staggering invasions of our rights to safeguard our illusion of security. The train has left the station and it ain't coming back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Dang it! I was hoping that those machines were actually going away.

</comment><comment><USER47> As someone who used to travel extensively for work, I've been through these things dozens of times. I consider myself a modest person and wouldn't walk around a locker room without a towel, but I don't see what the big deal is with these scanners. Who cares if someone you don't know who doesn't know your identity can see a blurry outline of your junk? Its like two ships passing in the night.

Edit: I will admit trying to avoid them. Not for privacy reasons but because they are sloooow. The line going through the regular x-ray always moves much faster.

<comment><USER48> I completely agree. The pictures these things produce aren't recognisable as more than a vague outline. I think sometimes people forget that they aren't actually that unique. We're all naked under our clothes. Most people aren't special enough that anyone cares about seeing a pixelated naked image of them.

The guy in the TSA booth sees thousands of naked people a day. He's not laughing at you, he's just trying to get through his day. It's similar to how going to the doctor with something embarrassing seems like a huge deal for most people, but to the doctor you're just the nth person that week pulling down their trousers.

<comment><USER49> > It's similar to how going to the doctor with something embarrassing seems > like a huge deal for most people

Except the doctor serves a purpose and the TSA is just a jobs program and waste of money. Remind me how many of these caught terrorists per million dollars spent.

<comment><USER48> Airport screening was introduced in the US in 1973. In the 5 years prior to this there was 12 major aircraft hijackings originating from the US. In the 5 years after this, there were 2.

Airport screening effectively ended the very rapidly increasing number of aircraft hijackings which occurred in the early '70s. There were of course other factors in play, but the sharp drop (1972 saw 6 major hijackings) after the introduction of airport screening is certainly a good indicator of the effectiveness of airport screening.

Airport screening isn't completely effective, but it's fairly demonstrable that having a layer of security when boarding an aircraft does act as a deterrent to aircraft hijackings. It doesn't completely stop them, but it does make a difference.

I'm not going to defend the TSA as an organisation, but to say that airport screening as a whole serves no purpose is not really based in fact. It's almost certainly possible to bring banned items onto aircraft, and it's fairly reasonable to assume that if someone is dedicated enough they will find a way to cause death, but what airport screening does do is act as enough of a deterrent that aircraft hijacking isn't seen as an easy crime. The rapid drop in numbers post-screening shows that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I see that Bloomberg is keeping with their habit of misleading titles and linkbait.

</comment><comment><USER51> Does anybody have a link to the site that tracks user-submitted reviews of security lines sorted by airport/terminal/airline and tells you which lines are forced through which types of scanners?

My google fu has failed me...

<comment><USER51> Found it, for those who are interested - <http://tsastatus.net>

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> A step in the right direction, but they are going to replace them with yet another scanner. I wouldn't mind them not shooting any waves at me at all just so that I can board a plane.

</comment><comment><USER53> It's called Rapiscan? Really!?

</comment><comment><USER54> About time!

</comment><comment><USER55> Great! Money well spent, then!</comment>