Show HN: Open Sourced My iOS Reddit Client - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/readditapp/

<comment><USER2> I understand that you're probably trying to get Reddit upvotes as well, but I think a link to the repo itself [0] would be better.

And a little critique about your code: you shouldn't set the ivar backing synthesized properties in your implementation (instance) methods. For example, in RDBrowserController.m doing

        self.webView = wv

(invoking the setter) rather than

        if (webView) [webView release];
        webView = wv;

is both shorter and universally safer, and prevents issues if you end up using Key-Value Observing down the road.

It's also safer to retain the new value before releasing the current value in setters you write yourself - this prevents setting to the same value repeatedly from releasing the object prior to retaining it.

0: <https://github.com/samuraisam/readdit>

<comment><AUTHOR> The goal with linking right to the subreddit is that's where I'm coordinating the development effort. There's absolutely no benefit in getting reddit upvotes in a subreddit with 50 subscribers.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Beyond Keywords, The advanced digital marketing podcast - <AUTHOR> https://koemcrae.com/podcast/ <comment><USER2> Here's the actual URL to the podcast: [https://kolemcrae.com/podcast/](https://kolemcrae.com/podcast/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This site can't be reached

koemcrae.com's server IP address could not be found.

DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow - typo in the domain! Thanks for noticing. Bit strange that someone upvoted a broken url though!</comment></comment>


4X Space Strategy game Star Ruler 2 open sourced - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/BlindMindStudios/StarRuler2-Source <comment><AUTHOR> The announcement: [https://steamcommunity.com/app/282590/discussions/1/17106901...](https://steamcommunity.com/app/282590/discussions/1/1710690176754840807/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Electric Boogaloo?</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone here getting unwanted sexual advancement in their workplace? - <AUTHOR> It seems like every tech company seems to have this problem? The most recent one I had was from a junior fb engineer from UIUC. Last week it was from a content moderator in california street. How do you deal with this? <comment><USER2> It's not just tech. I've witnessed this working in corporate offices of many industries including manufacturing, apparel, real estate, health care, and hospitality.</comment>


Found a security exploit, now what? - <AUTHOR> I've found a security exploit on a major site. what's the best way to tell them without getting any backlash <comment><USER2> Have you committed any crime yet? If not try to find the most technical email on their site or hunt down someone on LinkedIn. However do not make anything sound like a threat and be upfront with your intentions regarding things like compensation and disclosure.</comment>


LHCb experiment discovers a new pentaquark - <AUTHOR> https://home.cern/news/news/physics/lhcb-experiment-discovers-new-pentaquark <comment><USER2> So, what is a pentaquark exactly? The article doesn't say.

<comment><USER3> Usually quarks are confined in composite particles of two (mesons) or three (baryons) quarks. However they can also in certain conditions form particles of 5 quarks (the pentaquarks).

<comment><USER2> Oh, so quarks can only be composites of two, three, and five? Any reason that could be stated in layman's terms?

<comment><USER3> Quantum chromodynamics (the theory which describes the strong interaction) has a feature called colour confinement, which says that quarks will favour being in colourless configuration (where colourless = zero colour charge). The two easiest ways for this to happen are in mesons (two quarks: one quark and one antiquark of the same colour, like red + antired = colourless), or in baryons (three quarks: 1 red + 1 green + 1 blue = colourless) like the familiar proton and neutron. However other configurations are possible, these are just the simplest ones. In certain incredibly difficult to attain conditions, we can avoid producing either a two- or three-quark composite particle but produce instead a five-quark particle (e.g. 1 red + 1 green + 1 blue + 1 red + 1 antired = colourless).

This "colour" means colour charge, it doesn't have any relation to the regular meaning of "colour of light".

<comment><USER4> > This "colour" means colour charge.

Color charge is essentially as charge. I.e. instead of having +/\- you have A/B/C. Except you also have Anti A/B/C.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is both entertainment and information, so to justify it I'll ask a question about this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM) (Large Hadron Rap)

Are these goals still accurate or has new knowledge and engineering changed the goals of the detectors?

<comment><USER6> The rap is pretty bad. It lists four questions: dark matter, matter-antimatter asymmetry (aka baryogenesis, related to CP violation), Higgs boson, and hierarchy problem (why gravity is so weak; rap alludes extra dimension).

We found Higgs boson, which is great. We are no closer to answer other three questions, and frankly, there was no reason to expect LHC to help there, it was all wishful thinking. Sure, it was possible, LHC would do what has never been done, but not very probable.

<comment><USER7> As I see it, we are basically putting more and more energy into these particle collisions and hoping something unexpected happens.</comment></comment></comment>


Introduction to Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://videolectures.net/mit6046jf05_demaine_lec02/ <comment><USER2> I once watched all these lectures, took notes and published summaries of the lectures on my blog:

[http://www.catonmat.net/blog/summary-of-mit-introduction- to-...](http://www.catonmat.net/blog/summary-of-mit-introduction-to- algorithms/)

<comment><USER3> As someone who generally avoids AV content, thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I highly recommend this course <https://class.coursera.org/algo-2012-002/class/index>

</comment><comment><USER5> Check out E.Demaine's other classes. Video footage is fresher and of higher res. Subjects are awesome too.

<http://erikdemaine.org/classes/> \-- <http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.851/spring12/> \-- <http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.849/fall10/>

</comment><comment><USER6> That's MIT 2005. Here's their 2008 algorithms course:

[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and- comput...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer- science/6-006-introduction-to-algorithms-spring-2008/)

<comment><USER7> The 2008 edition doesn't seem to have any video lectures or am I missing something?

<comment><USER6> My bad. I watched the first 2005 lecture on YouTube last week and then noticed 2008 when I went to the Open Courseware page. Hadn't quite made it to lecture 2 yet. Here's Stanford's course & videos on Coursera:

<https://class.coursera.org/algo-2012-002/class/index>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have watched most of these as well. I took a course last semester at Auburn University that was based off this one and is nearly identical, we even used the same book listed on the site, written by these guys at MIT. They literally wrote the book on the subject.

</comment><comment><USER9> 6.046 is not an introductory algorithm course. 6.006 is. 6.46 is more advanced algorithms.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am hoping they would offer this course again via the MITx/edX platform later this year

</comment><comment><USER11> Very good material and the new website with side by side presentation is cool!

</comment><comment><USER12> what is the prerequisite course for this course, I couldnt understand anything ...

<comment><USER13> I didn't watch the videos, but I have a copy of the book they're using. From the preface:

* You should have some programming experience. In particular, you should understand recursive procedures and simple data structures such as arrays and linked lists.

* You should have some facility with proofs by mathematical induction. A few portions of the book rely on some knowledge of elementary calculus.

<comment><USER12> its definitely point two where I am completely blank, but I feel this is a bit too much of a (prerequisite) barrier, for an introductory course!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _write,write,write_....say something really fast... _write,write,write_

I need the 'for dummies' version</comment>


Football, fire and ice: the inside story of Iceland's remarkable rise (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/08/iceland-stunning-rise-euro-2016-gylfi-sigurdsson-lars-lagerback <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: Am Icelandic, very generally proud of how my country punches above its weight in sports.

Having said that it's unbelievable how a publication like The Guardian can write an article about UEFA 2016 with claims like "smallest nation ever to reach a major tournament", without mentioning that 2016 is the first year where 24 teams compete, instead of 16 as has been the case since 1996. Before that it was 8 for a while, and 4 when the tournament first started in the 60s.

Iceland's been getting consistently better at football for decades now, and it beat England last year in the tournament showing that it could play with the big boys. But _obviously_ if the tournament is expanded from 16 to 24 teams, an increase of 50%, it's going to be the first year that some small team qualifies.

<comment><USER3> They do mention it:

"For all the alluring backstory, questions still remain. Chiefly there is that brittleness. Iceland are ready. Iceland have a great system. But are they actually any good? Most riffs on this story tend to overlook the fact Iceland had plenty of luck in qualifying.

 _The expanded tournament helped._ Other teams played poorly. Iceland tended to sit behind the ball, scoring from knockdowns and set pieces. Even in the key home defeat of Holland they had 26% of possession."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is an excellent story and pretty fascinating to hear the background of it. If any non-Europeans or football fans don't know what's up, Iceland has the population of a small city and very little history as a footballing nation, yet they managed to progress into the later stages of the European Championships, knocking out former footballing greats like England (and giving Portugal - the winners of the tournament - a scare) along the way.

Also it's funny to see the Guardian continue to live up to its "Grauniad" nickname once again - the FIRST non-headline sentence has "Iceland travel Euro 2016..." should be "Iceland travel _to_ Euro 2016...". I once for fun kept a tumblr with screenshots of these but it became very boring because:

1\. there's usually one glaringly obvious mistake in nearly every single article

2\. they never seem to issue corrections, so screenshotting is pointless (this one's over half a year old)

3\. they're otherwise a good paper/site, so it feels a bit harsh to point this out (even if it is just for fun)

<comment><USER5> _> This is an excellent story_

Agreed: I highly recommend it.

 _> there's usually one glaringly obvious mistake in nearly every single article_

An actual mistake or a typographical error? It compares very favorably to the error rate in Donald Trump tweets!

 _> they never seem to issue corrections,_

The Guardian is famous for publishing a "Corrections & Clarifications" column [1], and collected clarifications have even been published in book form [2].

However, typographical errors are rarely included, though they do get corrected on the website.

 _> so screenshotting is pointless_

Yes, screen-shotting is pointless. However, you can email the quoted line(s) and a link to the Guardian global readers' editor at email@example.com

Hope that helps!

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/series/correctionsan...](https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/series/correctionsandclarifications)

[2] Books [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corrections- Clarifications-2002-May...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corrections- Clarifications-2002-Mayes-Ian/dp/1843541734) [https://www.amazon.co.uk/CORRECTIONS-CLARIFICATIONS-Ian- Maye...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/CORRECTIONS-CLARIFICATIONS-Ian- Mayes/dp/1841156035) [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-Correct-Best-Corrections- Clari...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-Correct-Best-Corrections- Clarifications/dp/1843544652)

<comment><USER4> Haha by "screenshotting is pointless" I meant that capturing a funny moment for posterity is pointless since it'll probably be there for years to come. But yes the whole endeavour was pointless when you think about it.

<comment><USER5> My apologies for mis-reading you.

I have a bee in my bonnet about (PR) people who send me images of things when I have to retype the contents ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember reading this story last summer and finding it really fascinating

the part I really liked was the part that talked about the spread of coaches:

"Fine. But how have they done it? For once there is a fairly easy answer. This is a command economy kind of fairytale, managed from the top down. There are three clear strands. The first of these is coaching.

Arrigo Sacchi famously suggested elite coaching should be open to people from any walk of life, from elevator operators to stockbrokers. At the end of the last century the Icelandic FA put this into practice. Bolstered by the TV money pouring into every Uefa country, Iceland set up an open, hugely popular training scheme. Currently this nation of 335,000 has around 600 qualified coaches, 400 with Uefa B licences, or one per 825 people. To put this into context, in England this number falls to one per 11,000.

The result is a spread of expertise right down to the lowest level. "Here you need a Uefa B licence to coach from under-10 level up and half of the Uefa B licence to coach under-eights," Dagur Sveinn Dagbjartsson of the Icelandic FA says. This isn't simply box-ticking. The Uefa B is one step off the level needed to coach a professional team in England. Yelling dads it ain't.

Dagur is coordinator of the Icelandic FA's coach education programme. Boyish and studious, like so many other people around here he has a genuine fascination with the systems being put into place. "Even if you start training at four years old you get good quality coaching. Every coach in Iceland gets paid, we don't have any amateurs. Every kid who plays pays an annual fee and can go and train with a professional club. My own kid started when he was three. One coach had the Uefa A licence and one the B licence." "

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

its interesting to think about what sort of advantage the institutional spread of knowledge is

<comment><USER7> One of my former soccer coaches has always said that he thinks the best coaches should be on the lower/young levels, later it's "too late" for a good coach to save them anyway. Not sure if I totally agree, but interesting thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How Iceland Football National Team Was Selected: Total inhabitants = 332,529

Women ....................................... -165,259

Men <18 years old ........................... -40,546

Overweight .................................. -22,136

Busy in whale sightseeing industry........... -1,246

Busy in earthquake surveillance.............. -314

Busy in volcano surveillance................. -164

Busy as sheepherders......................... -1,934

Busy sheep shearing.......................... -1,464

Imprisoned bankers........................... -23

Blind........................................ -194

Sick......................................... -7,564

Working in hospitals, police, fire brigade... -564

Icelandic fans in stadium.................... -8,781

Team doctor and physiotherapist.............. -2

Teams massage therapist and water carrier.... -2

Busy managing national football team......... -7

Rest......................................... 23

[https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4psdbh/how_the_icel...](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4psdbh/how_the_iceland_football_national_team_was/)

<comment><USER9> _(The coach is from Sweden)_

You missed the punch line!

As an aside, obviously, those numbers are obviously cherry-picked, but they appear to be mostly selected based on facts. You can find some census figures in this booklet: [http://www.statice.is/media/49863/icelandinfigures2016.pdf](http://www.statice.is/media/49863/icelandinfigures2016.pdf) (The booklet says that of 111k men, 2.6% (or about 2900) are involved in the sum of all non-aquatic agricultural activities; I couldn't find precise details on sheep farming.) Nonetheless, I'm particularly curious about the listed ratio of sheepherders (shepherds?) to sheep shearers, at 1,934 vs. 1,464

The numbers seem to imply that sheep shearing takes 75% as long as sheep herding. I imagined that one sheep shearer would have sufficient capacity to service a large number of shepherds. Each sheep is typically sheared once per year, and it might take two or three minutes per sheep. But the shepherd must manage the sheep year round. Even with modern automated feeding equipment, farm tractors, and, of course, the requisite sheepdogs, I can't imagine that one shepherd could generate nearly enough sheep to keep a shearer busy for 9 months per year. Even assuming the shearer requires 5 minutes per sheep and only does shearing 30 hours per week for 4 weeks per month, that's 13,000 sheep per shepherd.

The same answer illuminates a couple things about our industries, too: If a task only needs to be performed a couple times a year, a freelancer will need many, many clients! And conversely, if you can automate or outsource day-to- day operations, you can get a lot more done than if you have to process everything manually!

<comment><USER2> Leaving aside that these numbers seem like some April Fools' gag...

        > But the shepherd must manage the sheep year round.

You're obviously just making stuff up and not familiar with how this is done in Iceland.

Sheep aren't being constantly herded around. During the winter they're inside a barn because everything is covered in snow, during the entirety of the summer they free range getting fatter, raising lambs etc. In the autumn there's a big coordinated herding event (göngur) where farmers and volunteers in an entire area coordinate to herd all the free-range sheep into pens for the winter.

So literally nobody in the country works as a full-time sheepherder. Since it's all over in a matter of days.

<comment><USER9> > You're obviously just making stuff up

I am passingly familiar with sheep and cattle management on a small farm in the US, and based my assumptions on this process.

> and not familiar with how this is done in Iceland.

That, however, is true. Your description is fascinating! So Icelandic shepherds aren't managing the sheep during the summer? No feeding, medicating, breeding, etc?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How can one write an entire article about sports in Iceland and not include even a passing mention Formula Off Road?

This is a travesty.</comment>


U.S. Officials Suspect New Nuclear Missile in Explosion That Killed 7 Russians - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/world/europe/russia-nuclear-accident-putin.html <comment><USER2> So how exactly does a "Nuclear-Propelled cruise missile" work? I would have assumed the weight of any nuclear reactor to make any such contraption impossible? Is this a conventional nuclear reactor producing electricity to run an electric motor, or is there some other scheme I haven't heard of?

<comment><USER3> It's a lightweight nuclear reactor that heats up air for propulsion.

US project from the fifties:

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

Current russian project:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik)

<comment><USER4> It boggles me that any country in the 21st century would attempt to build such a horrifyingly irresponsible machine, geopolitics be damned.

This thing is basically a dirty bomb on an unstoppable cruise missile. Any reactor powerful enough to drive a thing like that is going to make a _big_ radioactive mess wherever it lands. There's no safe way to test it, either - you can use a dummy warhead, but you can't use a dummy reactor.

Also, clearly such a thing must be air-cooled, which means the moment you have a launch failure, you have a meltdown on your hands (dollars to doughnuts something like that happened here). Just _developing_ such a thing is going to cause a huge raft of nuclear incidents.

<comment><USER5> Nuclear planes have already been built and tested. The problem is the shielding to keep the pilots from dying is too heavy. A cruise missile gets rid of the need for that.

<comment><USER4> Even if that were true, which as far as I can tell it isn't (both Soviet and US nuclear aircraft programs were canceled before any powered prototypes were made), aircraft at least are not meant to crash. All cruise missiles crash. Deliberately pulverizing a fueled-up nuclear reactor is not a nice thing to do.

In fact, according to Wikipedia, the risk of crashing and making a mess was a factor in the cancellation of both programs.

<comment><USER6> Its job is to deliver a fission warhead without being intercepted by current or future antimissile defences, the dirty bomb inside is comparatively unimportant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So what's the motivation for those more advanced weapons? I thought we're already at MAD and the amount of current rockets would not be stopped by any existing system. (I.e. at least a small portion would get though) This would make developing anything more a waste of resources/time. Is that not correct anymore?

<comment><USER8> Tinfoily, but perhaps US anti missile systems are more effective than were lead to believe.

<comment><USER9> Its not tinfoil. ICBMs are nearly impossible to stop, and the systems designed to shoot them down only have like a ~50% chance of working.</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists formalize perfect handshake; world peace on track for 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/16/scientists-formalize-perfect-handshake-world-peace-on-track-for/

<comment><USER2> Bah weep gragnah weep ninni bong!</comment>


Co-founder bailed on my laundry delivery startup. Looking to replace him.  - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I have a laundry delivery platform web app built in python. Plus an already existing relationship with Boston's #1 laundry/dry cleaning business. You can check it out: www.laundrigo.com
The vision is to be in every city in the country and be the grub hub of laundry/dry cleaning delivery. The general motto is: Hate Laundry? We have an app for that.
I need somebody who can make UI tweaks in order to launch this Fall for back to college. I have a backlog with 30 or so items. Not all of them need to get done prior to launching. The website is built on python.
I fully understand us needing to go on a few dates first and would be happy to pay a reasonable hourly rate. Bear in mind this is a scrappy bootstrap operation.
Feel free to email me with your questions: LiranBaron at gmail.
If you want to learn more about why my cofounder bailed, then please email me. i don't want to "air our dirty laundry" in public ;). Basically he couldn't make time. <comment><USER2> Interesting idea and good luck in your search for a co-founder.

It looks like your web app redirects to the https version. In Safari 4 on Mac, I receive "Safari can't verify the identify of the website www.laundrigo.com" and I see an error "This certificate was signed by an unknown authority". Chrome shows an even scarier message.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's item #1 on the backlog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Re the SSL error, I think the problem maybe that you've forgotten to configure your server to send the intermediate CA certs. Without these certs the browser can't build a path to one of its pre-configured trust anchors.

To see what I mean, you can use openssl or this online tool: <http://certlogik.com/sslchecker/>

If you examine your website with it, you'll notice that only one cert, the server cert, is returned.

Now check, say, www.godaddy.com and you'll see a chain of CA certs returned in addition to the server cert.

Your web server docs should provide the details on how to add these CA certs. For example, I think Apache uses SSLCertificateChainFile.

</comment><comment><USER4> Your SSL certificate is shown as untrusted by Chrome... May want to take a look because it makes for a pretty nasty error page and that's not what you want visitors to see first.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sounds interesting and good luck! Do you really need a co-founder? IMO, if at this stage you're paying someone a "reasonable hourly rate" they aren't really a co-founder but rather employee #1.

I know it's popular right now to have co-founders, but I'd say just stick with it and go for it. If you have clear tasks and the revenue (or funds) to support bringing on employees the do so but otherwise put your head down and stick with it!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to pay an hourly rate in order to make sure it's a good match on both ends. Ultimately for us to succeed having a technical co founder is going to be critical. In order to pivot and make data driven changes speed is critical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a footer that says I agree to your Terms of Use by using the site, but there's no link to your Terms of Use to speak of (at least on the main page).

</comment><comment><USER7> 1\. Consider listing your startup on <http://fairsoftware.net>, that's the site dedicated to finding co-founders (I'm the founder).

2\. Your project sounds interesting. My advice, if you want to find a co- founder, is to have evidence that customers are lining up to use your service. If that's the case, it's 10X more motivating for the developer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip - I will checkout the site.

In terms of getting traction - I agree. We have the usual friends and family ready to go. But the site needs to work properly first.

Edit: you don't seem to have python listed as a search option

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 2574.07 miles away from me...bummer. I can't even find a laundry place near where I live in East LA...glad someone is doing it.

(Might want to put a range threshold on that search.)

</comment><comment><USER9> Liran - it's Amal from LHS. Glad to see that you're livin the startup life. We're doing that out in California. Good luck with finding a cofounder.

</comment><comment><USER10> Also worth pointing out: your site crashes iOS4 Safari while loading your index page. Running on the latest.</comment>


I invented the web. Here are three things we need to change to save it - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/11/tim-berners-lee-web-inventor-save-internet <comment> loup-vaillant I see two problems, which cause the 3 cited in the article.

First, the web does not scale. If your web site becomes popular, (even if temporarily), you have to handle the load, or suffer unavailability. This effect is magnified if you publish heavy files such as videos. This draws people towards centralised services such as blog and vlog platforms, which serve us ads and restrict free speech because that's how they make money and manage not to get sued every time someone says something illegal somewhere.

Second, the web has eaten the internet. We use it for email, file sharing… basically everything but phone apps and networked games. It's gotten so ubiquitous that nobody notices the serious attack on their internet connection: crappy upload, closed SMTP port, NAT…

The solution is as simple as it is impossible: we need to get rid of the web —mostly.

First, some infrastructure. We need symmetric bandwidth, public IP(v6), no closed ports, and a nice 5W home server/router/firewall that's always on.

Second, we need to replace web services by something else. Publishing should be handled by peer-to-peer protocols similar to BitTorrent, so that popularity doesn't eat all your bandwidth. And poof, just like that, services like Medium and YouTube are no longer needed. So are centralised social networks —we can do decentralised restricted publishing. Everyone can of course have their own mail server, no need for gmail to spy on us. Public forums can probably be decentralised as well, maybe if we take inspiration from newsgroups?

Then the web will scale back to its proper place, and hopefully will stop being a threat to our freedoms.

</comment><comment><USER2> On a more technical level: We need more decentralization and adherence to the end-to-end principle

<comment><USER3> Agreed on decentralization, but the current direction on encryption is amazingly hostile to it - i.e. with no standards for defining the borders of your own network, or trust relationships, the ability to do caching sanely just goes out the window.

Which is bad for decentralization - because decentralizing really _really_ requires an ability to offload and delegate where data is stored - it's not practical, for instance, for my phone to cache huge chunks of the web, but a server in my house that's always on (or has a more reliably available power supply) can do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As commerce has become more mechanised, we've lost the ability to bargain and haggle in consumer business relationships. Forget about sacrosanct privacy rights, I can't even choose to _pay_ to opt out of a lot of data collection. We need better options than all-or-nothing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Political manipulation, control, misinformation and so on has been around long before the invention of the web and will be around long after we stop using the web.

Just as it did not start with Donald Trump and certainly not will end with him.

</comment><comment><USER6> That donation ad at the bottom is hilarious, in context. Sorry Guardian, but you're not getting a cent from me after all the tripe you published. Throw out all the click bait opinion pieces and stop removing comments that show they're full of it, then maybe we'll talk. Your writers' egos are not more important than the truth.

It's the sharing of content that plausibly bashes the outgroup and confirms the ingroup's dogma that continues to polarize, keeping people hooked on the superstimulus of having their opinions confirmed.

I see very very few people trying to see and understand that. Start by ungagging the ones who have been silenced and silod under the guise of false civility.

</comment><comment><USER7> What if we start by having honest title? like : Sir Tim Berners-Lee words about today's web</comment>


Take action to save .org and prosecute those who sold out the internet - <AUTHOR> https://drewdevault.com/2019/11/29/dotorg.html <comment><USER2> While I don't agree with the sale of the .org to a for-profit entity, I believe the premise of this objection is not tenable. From what I can glean, while PIR is a non-profit, it was not a non-stock company (non-profits are often, but not always non-stock companies, meaning they have no shareholders). Were it a non-stock company, it would be impossible for it to be acquired for any material compensation, because there are no shareholders from whom to buy the company. In this case, however, it appears that PIR was a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISOC (ie. a stock corporation with a single shareholder). As such, it is an asset of ISOC and can be sold by ISOC legally. A non-profit is allowed to sell its assets, so long as it does so at fair market value, and the value received remains on the balance sheet of the non-profit (i.e. proceeds cannot be distributed to any kind of shareholders). As long as ISOC retains the $1B it received and continues to use it to further the mission that it was given non-profit status to pursue, such a transaction is perfectly legal.

(I'm not a lawyer but have been involved in the creation and certification of multiple non-profits, including in Va. where PIR was formed, and have been party to asset sales from non-profits.)

<comment><USER3> (I also work in the nonprofit space)

In this case, ISOC should almost certainly lose their 501(c)3 status, as the transaction is unrelated business income, and may or may not have been sold at fair market value (I don't believe it was). In either of these cases, the penalty is at minimum the removal of their 501(c)3 status.

I believe they may be preempting this by converting themselves to a "B Corp."

The case of ICANN is more interesting. I believe they knew what was going on here, and facilitated this transaction to their former CEO. In this case, the IRS has good reason to revoke ICANN's 501(c)3 status, as this transaction was self-dealing.

<comment><USER2> Unrelated business income does not cause a loss of 501(c)3 status, it's just that the unrelated income is not tax exempt (i.e. the org which otherwise does not pay taxes on income has to pay income tax on the unrelated income).

Also, if I understood correctly, it is PIR that is considering becoming a B Corp, which they can do since they cannot remain a 501(c)3 now that they are owned by a for-profit entity.

Last, it would be very difficult to prove this wasn't a fair market value transaction. There was an investment banker involved (Goldman), so I assume they shopped to a number of different parties, in which case it's hard to argue that the price paid (assuming it was one of the highest bids) is not the FMV.

As I said in my original comment, I don't like the transaction, so don't take this as a defense of the appropriateness of selling it to a for-profit. But I think it is difficult to challenge on the basis that the transaction itself was illegal.

<comment><USER3> Excessive unrelated business income causes a loss of public charity status due to failing the public support test. In this case it's moot because ISOC is giving up on their status regardless. I was wrong saying 501(c)3 status is lost- instead, the organization becomes a private foundation with accompanying restrictions and regulations (e.g. disbursement requirements).

In the case of ICANN, I can see the IRS dropping 501(c)3 status. While the final purchase price of the .org asset may or may not have been at fair market value (as you note, having GS involved gives credibility), it's undeniable that ICANN made it possible by lifting price hikes. I don't see how it isn't self-dealing, unless ICANN truly had absolutely no idea their former CEO was going to acquire .org. I think it's more likely that they were convinced to lift the price hikes by their former CEO.

<comment><USER2> you raise an interesting point that caused me to look deeper into the 990s filed by ISOC and PIR. So, I share this in case you are curious (or getting sucked down this rathole like I am:)).

In 2017, ISOC created the Internet Society Foundation (like PIR a wholly owned subsidiary of Internet Society). PIR was a cash machine, generating ~$75M in cash, which they recorded as having been paid out in grants. ISOC split that so that ~30M showed up as revenue on Internet Society's 990, and $43M showed up on the newly created Internet Society Foundation's 990 as revenue. This may have been to avoid ISOC failing a public support test? (I'm operating at the limits of my understanding at this point and haven't taken the time to dig into this question). I am going to speculate that the proceeds from the sale of PIR will also go into the Foundation.

Interestingly, the ISOC 990 does not show their ownership in PIR as a material asset on the balance sheet. One would think that a wholly owned sub that has $90M+ in revenue and throws off $75M in cash would be treated as an asset of value? It's possible there is something about non-profit accounting that makes this okay under GAAP - not something I know much about, but it caught my eye.

I don't know how to evaluate the self-dealing question - I have dealt with some of the other issues here (eg disposition of non-profit assets, unrelated income, etc) as a non-profit founder, board member, or treasurer, but I have never wrestled with a self-dealing issue (thankfully!), so I don't know what the courts would look for there.

Edit: source here is 2017 990s for Internet Society, Internet Society Foundation, and Public Interest Registry, pulled down from Guidestar. 2017 is the most recent year available for all three.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems like the most likely route to success would be for a few big internet companies to set up a .org nonprofit and treat it as the authority, ignoring icann. Fork the tld, in other words.

<comment><USER5> This is essentially impossible though.

It sounds good but I don't see most ISPs caring.

<comment><USER6> The ISPs don't have to. You only need the major OS and maybe browser vendors.

<comment><USER5> Major OSes just use the ISP DNS server - changing that would break a lot of stuff.

For example in countries with limited internet, you need to connect to the ISPs servers (redirect from http sites) to purchase data allowances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The level of corruption on display by the three organizations involved in > this scam: ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), ISOC > (The Internet Society), and PIR (Public Interest Registry), is astounding > and very illegal.

If these organizations are so corrupt, then them selling .org simply demonstrates that they're too corrupt to manage it. We can't simply reverse this, you're just handing it back to the entity that sold it.

So... what do we replace them with? Because I'm pretty sure you'll get a new organization made up of people who will be as fallible and prone to corruption as any of these organizations and Ethos are.

<comment><USER8> To me the fundamental problem is that _someone_ has to own the tld itself.

<comment><USER9> a non-profit consortium consisting of .org stakeholders could be a start

<comment><USER5> Cooperative ownership.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> bjelkeman-again Is there anything meaningful that non-US based people can do? Who is ICANN accountable to internationally?

I read this, and it doesn't seem they are accountable to anyone? But I am probably wrong. Enlighten me. [https://www.icann.org/stewardship- accountability](https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability)

</comment><comment><USER10> > Funny how this all happened right when the American public would be > distracted

The vast majority of the American public wouldn't care about this no matter when it happened.

</comment><comment><USER11> It was a mistake to have GLTDs other than the two-letter country codes. That would have ensured that the DNS namespace was partitioned in a way that mapped directly to legal jurisdictions.

As it is now, we have the proliferation of GTLDs that with an extremely ambiguous mapping to legal jurisdictions.

<comment><USER12> Agreed. Still, for large, international companies and institutions I doubt the `.int` TLD would have caught on.

<comment><USER13> .int is for international treaty organisations. It is highly restricted, it is not available to companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> irq-1 Can FAANGish companies setup an alternative root for .org? We would all prefer a technical solution, but we don't have one today.

<comment><USER14> No. For example, I have a .org email domain. In order to make this work, everybody involved, that is dns, email hoster and various dbs, ssl certs infra, browsers and email apps, they all need to properly resolve my .org domain. It's unrealistic to expect all these parties to suddenly respect the new dns resolver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks like Russian-style "privatization" has finally come to America!

<comment><USER14> It's the opposite. Iirc, icann was a semi gov entity and everybody complained that the internet is effectively controlled by the US gov via ICANN. So the gov decided to yield and give ICANN freedom. Sure enough, icann was quickly captured by pirates.

<comment><USER15> I was referring to the original sellout of USSR institutions during the '90s: as the world pushed the Soviets to renounce public ownership, they sold off massive assets at fire-sale prices to well-connected profiteers.

Here, .org had certain restrictions that made its governance somewhat "public". Those restrictions were removed and the asset was hurriedly sold, at a debatable price, to well-connected profiteers. Looks very similar to me.</comment></comment></comment>


Replacement Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phone catches fire on Southwest plane - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/5/13175000/samsung-galaxy-note-7-fire-replacement-plane-battery-southwest <comment><USER2> This is a huge problem for Samsung. Individual recalls don't usually damage companies permanently; people understand that sometimes shit happens, and they quickly forget about it. But two in a row, when the replacements were supposed to be safe, is the kind of thing that etches itself much more deeply into public consciousness. Popular culture is now going to be associating "Samsung phone" with "time bomb" for a long time to come.

<comment><USER3> And the event taking place on an airplane is close enough to the nightmare scenario of catching fire during a flight that it will be firmly placed into the public consciousness.

<comment><USER4> I flew Emirates last week, and the preflight announcement about electronic devices said use of all devices was ok, except Galaxy Note 7 which need to stay turned off during the whole flight. I can't imagine much worse PR, when yoir products are routinely called out by neutral third parties for being an actual hazard source.

<comment><USER5> And this thing was supposedly off when it started smoking:

"Green said that he had powered down the phone as requested by the flight crew and put it in his pocket when it began smoking."

What's the remedy here? All Galaxy Notes in the airtight metal box until we land?

<comment><USER6> First I'm surprised Al Queda doesn't use a special OS or a virus to make phones explode on a plane. Second, it could be competitors who specifically target the Note 7 with a 0-day attack to harm Samsung's reputation.

All phones with a battery are a fire hazard if they get the wrong OS.

<comment><USER7> The battery itself has a controller to prevent overcharging. I very much doubt the OS can override that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Samsung really needs to cut bait here, accept and admit fully that they made a major engineering mistake, come clean, and forcibly recall ALL the devices, before there is a major disaster.

The time for serious, adult action was several weeks ago. From here on out, they deserve what they get.

<comment><USER9> The thing is, this was a _replacement_ Note 7, which therefore includes their fix for the issue. So either they made a second mistake, or this is a very unlucky coincidence, or something else is going on.

<comment><USER10> This was the _box_ for a replacement Note 7. The question is, does the phone match the box?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting he's only been using wireless chargers. I used a Tylt wireless charger for a couple of Nexus 7s and both tablets now have a warped back due to overheating via prolonged charging.

Very curious if the fire was specifically caused by wireless charging.

</comment><comment><USER12> For those interested in understanding batteries at a more technical level check out this link:

[http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/)

[http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_304b_making_li...](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_304b_making_lithium_ion_safe)

</comment><comment><USER13> This entire episode seems hard to believe. How could Sammy fail so hard after so many years of industry knowledge? What corners did they cut?

Is it just unbalanced reporting or possibly sabotage? Seriously don't believe they got wrong what everyone else seems to have dodged.

<comment><USER14> I see the whole fiasco to be deeply related to how Samsung is run and controlled by the infamous Lee family. Note 7's battery is made by Samsung SDI, one of Samsung's subsidiaries, and I assume that SDI gets most of its revenues directly from Samsung Electronics. When you (SDI) have Samsung as your guaranteed customer, you don't really have to compete or try to survive. Besides, Samsung always set their flagship release dates based on expected Apple's iPhone releases, always trying to ship to market few weeks before Apple. When your release dates are set to your competitors' pace, not your own, you will certainly make mistakes like this.

<comment><USER15> The replacement battery is henceforth not made by SDI. Around 30% of the existing Note 7s were made by Amperex Technology, so they only need to increase those numbers.

You're statement would also mean that if you're a department within Apple you also do not need to compete or try to survive. I don't think that's necessarily true. There are probably inefficiencies, but there is also a lot to gain as well. It just depends on the quality of the organization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "He has already replaced it with an iPhone 7."

This is the biggest FU to samsung.

<comment><USER17> The commercial writes itself. Apple should be in negotiations with the guy already.

<comment><USER18> I'd say that's beneath Apple. They usually don't attack competitors directly (used to WAY back, but now now).

At least I really hope it is. Twisting the knife at something like this would be a pretty horrible thing to do.

<comment><USER19> Leaders (or at least those who perceive themselves to be) rarely have a need to attack those who are underneath them.

<comment><USER18> True, that's why it would feel so cheap. Back when Apple had 4% of the PC market (before iPod) it made sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone else think like me this might be a one time failure that is caused by the replacement phone being dropped or mishandled? Or, perhaps, a setup by the competition?

Unless I see statistical evidence that replacement Note 7 is catching on fire (random, different circumstances), then I do not see a reason to believe Note 7 replacement is b0rked.

Unfortunately, most people do not reason like that. Samsung's reputation will suffer, even after this single "Replacement Note 7 on fire" incident.

<comment><USER21> Most people don't reason like that because there is no acceptable reason for a phone to catch fire from "mishandling" or "dropping".

This was even after they thought they fixed the issue, so of course it looks very bad. Not only did they build a dangerous consumer device, it seems they did not actually fix it the second time around.

<comment><USER22> > there is no acceptable reason for a phone to catch fire from "mishandling" > or "dropping".

maybe there is no acceptable reason but it happens A LOT:

[https://www.google.nl/search?q=phone+catches+fire+-samsung](https://www.google.nl/search?q=phone+catches+fire+-samsung)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> When we flew with Lufthansa a few weeks ago they expressly forbade the use of the Galaxy Note 7. I have never heard something like that - its a real problem for Samsung.

<comment><USER24> Swiss air flight three weeks ago - same thing. Samsung galaxy 7 specifically mentioned as cannot be powered on during the flight.

<comment><USER25> According to the story it wasn't even powered on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why the heck would the article end with the information that the owner has replaced it with iPhone 7. When did the verge start"native" advertising?

<comment><USER27> How is that native advertising? It's relevant to the story.

<comment><USER28> It's about as relevant as saying he calmed his nerves from the whole ordeal with an ice cold coca cola.

<comment><USER29> Not really. It implies that the owner no longer has faith in Samsung products and has switched, so I'd say it's relevant. They could have said that he replaced it with "another brand," which would have been more appropriate, but I still think it's relevant.

<comment><USER28> It's still not relevant to the story, which is about the phone exploding. The owner losing faith in Samsung doesn't matter. The only way it would be relevant is if he has decided ahead of time that he was switching to the iPhone and Samsung tried to bump him off because of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> What percentage of Galaxy Note 7 owners know they have a Galaxy Note 7?

I imagine some break down is: I have an Android phone. I have a Samsung phone. I have a Samsung Galaxy. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note.

But Samsung Galaxy Note 7, specifically? I'm guessing at best 50% might know that.

<comment><USER31> I don't follow this at all. I definitely have a very skewed sample, but I haven't ever met a single person who didn't know exactly what type of smartphone they own. Phones are expensive, a Note 7 would be nearly brand new and is the most expensive and highest quality phone out there. I would guess that 99% of owners know what they have. People don't just pick up top-of-the- line flagships on a whim, only the most rich, lazy, AND ignorant person could settle on getting one without knowing exactly what they are buying. Anyone who is missing even just one of those qualities would end up with a different phone or know what they own.

And again, I've literally never met a person who couldn't immediately name their model smartphone, not the most dumbass poor person I've met nor my completely tech illiterate grandparents. Also, your breakdown seems fanciful anyway, who in the world would know that they have a Samsung "Galaxy"? No one cares about that name, it's only ever said in the middle of the whole title, it isn't a thing that people think about on its own.

<comment><USER32> Well the Galaxy Note 7 is a higher end device so maybe. But my parents both bought smartphones and they couldn't name the model. I tested this theory just now and my dad got the even the manufacturer wrong.

<comment><USER33> Right - the parent was saying if you have the _absolute latest_ flagship phone, you're likely to know it. The type of people who don't know the model of their phone are those who aren't buying the "Just released in last 60 days and is the most expensive in it's class" type smartphones.

<comment><USER34> Or they just got their first flagship and went with the most expensive one because the monthly cost didn't seem that large. I don't buy that most phone owners know the phone they own, but I could definitely see non-phone enthusiasts ending up with Note 7s

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > Green's colleague went back onto the plane to retrieve some personal > belongings and said that the phone had burned through the carpet and > scorched the subfloor of the plane.

I'm surprised this airline still doesn't have Planegard or something similar on board their aircraft. Burning/exploding devices are going to happen often enough that this should be a necessity.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU4ALLsedj0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU4ALLsedj0)

</comment><comment><USER36> What a mess. I wouldn't want to be in Samsung quality control right now.

In what has to be the nerdiest humor I've ever come up with, I suggested to some astronomer friends here at NASA that this Samsung Galaxy line be rebranded the Samsung Seifert.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's my understanding that all Lithium Ion batteries can fairly easily catch fire if they are not treated somewhat carefully, typically by a circuit that prevents loads that might cause it to heat up.

Is it theoretically possible that malware could be designed that would cause a Lithium Ion powered smart phone's battery to catch fire? I'm thinking it would be more of a low-level firmware update where a programmable logic device was used as part of the battery protection circuit.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER38> This is about Macbooks, not phones, but it's interesting background on your question nonetheless: [https://media.blackhat.com/bh- us-11/Miller/BH_US_11_Miller_B...](https://media.blackhat.com/bh- us-11/Miller/BH_US_11_Miller_Battery_Firmware_Public_WP.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Some of the datacenters I visit have signs on them forbidding people from having Samsung Note 7s on the floor.

"Keep them in your car," one of the signs said. Hmmm, maybe storing them near many liters of gasoline isn't the best idea . . .

<comment><USER40> I'm sure they'd rather you lose your car than their entire data center

<comment><USER41> The entire datacenter from one 3500mAh 5V battery? That sounds like a book rather than real life.

There's a reason people charging quadcopter's lipo batteries are told to watch them while charging, not abandon them.

<comment><USER42> It's not that they'd loose the data centre, but VESDA environmental monitoring units are surprisingly sensitive so you could easily end up with the fire suppression system firing.

At best you've then got a >$10k invoice to refill and reset the system. More likely you've got damage to servers, people and/or the building as well as massive amounts of disruption to deal with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I recently flew to Munich/Prague with Air Canada and Lufthansa - the flight attendants said to both not charge a Samsung Note 7 and that they require them to actually also be turned off.

<comment><USER44> Does turning them off prevent them from catching on fire?

What is the actual problem described in technical terms, really?

<comment><USER45> > Does turning them off prevent them from catching on fire?

Doubtful. Isn't it the Li-ion batteries that are combusting, ie. chemical reaction?

<comment><USER46> They might be safe without load on them. Who knows? Maybe Samsung does.

I'm imagining cargo ships / stores with stacks of these things though. Wonder if one goes boom, would that spread and start a fire?

<comment><USER45> I don't know if load matters[1]. Could be impact related, or heat related, or something else entirely?

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLc74Qpvweg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLc74Qpvweg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> What are the odds this is properly investigated? Korean chaebol culture is notoriously close-fisted.

<comment><USER14> It wouldn't even have been known to the public, if it happened only in Korea, because they have a complete control of the media in S Korea. When it first happened it Korea, media tried to dismiss it as if it was a false report by black consumers who are trying to win some money by suing Samsung. I found it pretty funny because, in Korea, you never win against any big companies in the court. There are no scenarios where you can sue a company and win any money. Even if, you do end up winning, it won't be in $millions like in US, but will max $10000, which rarely happens at all. So no sane person will even try. I am glad that it also happened in US, because Samsung does not have the same control in US as they do in Korea. The only way for this to be properly investigated is to be done by US, not Korean government. It was really ridiculous to see how all Korean media praised how great a company Samsung is when they announced a recall.

<comment><USER48> What about social media? Is it also difficult for such news to spread there?

<comment><USER14> People are afraid to share anything that talks bad about Samsung, because they believe it will affect them negatively in the future when searching for jobs or such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> These phones should be returned immediately by the company before someone inadvertently is dead because think of the senario where someone is driving with this phone in the drivers pocket & catches fire........ all OK if the car isn't doing 70 along a motorway otherwise - danger of a collision.... it has happened in the past re wasps & bees distracting the drivers attention which is a very serious matter. Any spontaneous combustion of anything must be resolved forthwith. So Are these phones being recalled ?

</comment><comment><USER50> What happens if someone decides to check it in their luggage and it catches fire there. Are there measures to deal with fires in the cargo hold?

<comment><USER51> There are - after a bunch of really bad aircraft fires in the 90s caused by hazardous materials in the cargo holds, the FAA has mandated fire suppression systems in all commercial air cargo holds.

Still, though, airlines would rather avoid the problem entirely. Airline safety usually relies on defense-in-depth - you fix the root cause, and then you fix anything else that would've stopped the problem, because things go wrong in a cramped cylinder at 30,000 feet. For example, a fast-moving fire could easily burn through the hydraulics or electronics that would trigger the fire suppression system before it has a chance to go off.

<comment><USER52> And that is how I quickly explain ORM-D ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORM-D](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORM-D)) class items like small arms ammunition, which of course is allowed to be packed in small quantities in individuals' checked luggage: things that aren't particularly dangerous by themselves, but if in a plane's cargo hold in sufficient quantity, could accelerate a fire beyond the capabilities of those fire suppression systems.

Whereas few overly worry about shipping 1000+/\- rounds by ground, except e.g. the movers that just moved me to my new home, they really can't afford to play the game of numbers with the few trucks they have (no batteries, or liquids (which could make a schedule breaking mess), either).

Big enough high energy batteries on planes, or too close to my skin ... those give me the heebie jeebies....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I got a flight across Greece a week or so back. It's the first time a named device was singled out as "do not turn on, do not attempt to charge, please identify yourself to cabin staff"-type stuff since the 1990s when there was a bunch of - I think, Gateway - laptops that were known to catch fire, and they were regularly not allowed on flights.

The fact this is a replacement means the product has a major engineering flaw, and is likely to end up meaning the product is scrapped completely.

This could be the end of Samsung. They need to get on this and shut it down within a few days. Good luck to them.

<comment><USER54> > This could be the end of Samsung.

This really could not. Samsung is a gigantic conglomerate. They make everything from power plants to super tankers and weapon systems. They could lose their phone business entirely and still be huge.

<comment><USER55> It's also not going to kill their phone business, at all.

<comment><USER56> It won't even end the Galaxy Note product line.

They'll just sweep it under the rug and release the next one in 9 months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Hopefully this means that a replaceable battery makes a comeback in the next Note series.

</comment><comment><USER58> Those iPhone 7 sales numbers are going to be absolutely MONSTROUS.

</comment><comment><USER49> Appropriate TV advert =====Boom -la la la la lah mental technicians of electronics??????

</comment><comment><USER49> There must be money to be made for a mobile phone mini fire extinguisher???????/

</comment><comment><USER49> Is there a ceramic furnace liner phone cover ????????

</comment><comment><USER59> Boarding an airplane they mention to turn off the Samsung Note 7 for the entire time on board.

Samsung will have to release a Note 8 soon. Note 7 users will have a hard time even in future and it's bad for Samsung's brands.

</comment><comment><USER60> Time to short Samsung.

<comment><USER61> It's not that easy to buy Samsung stock outside of South Korea.

<comment><USER40> SSNLF?

<comment><USER61> Not that easy unless you are a bit more into stock trading than the average retail investor, or willing to lump SSNLF in with a bunch of other South Korean companies in an index fund.

[http://www.nasdaq.com/article/why-and-how-to-invest-in- samsu...](http://www.nasdaq.com/article/why-and-how-to-invest-in-samsung- ssnlf-cm610116)

> The shares of Samsung don't trade on major exchanges like Nasdaq and NYSE in > the U.S. It is listed on the Korean exchange and available as GDR in London > and Luxembourg. However, in accordance with Rule 144A of the U.S. Securities > Exchange Act, U.S. citizens are prohibited from investing in GDR's. The > following options are available to U.S. investors:

> 1\. Investors can either buy shares directly in the Korean stock market > after proper paper work or through a local securities firm or bank (Merrill > Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. are eligible)

> 2\. Investors can buy Samsung's shares traded over-the-counter in the U.S.

> 3\. Investors can opt to take exposure to Samsung along with other Korean > companies by investing in a South Korea ETF, for example, the iShares MSCI > South Korea Capped ETF (EWY) has a heavy exposure of 20.64% towards Samsung > Electronics Co., Ltd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> It's starting to look a little like the Volkswagen fiasco.

</comment><comment><USER63> > Green's Note 7 is in the hands of the Louisville Fire Department's arson > unit for investigation. He has already replaced it with an iPhone 7.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm not sure why everyone is caught up with the competition between Apple and Samsung when the Blu R1-HD sells for $59. Most people I know would be indifferent between the Blu R1-HD and a higher end phone (considering performance, battery life, form factor, build quality, camera and screen quality).

<comment><USER64> Theres a bigger difference than you think.

I have here a Sony Xperia E1 and a Motorola Moto G (2nd gen)

The Xperia is also $59 and Sony is a more widely known brand so let's assume they're similar.

The Moto G was $179 new some years ago the Xperia is $59 today.

On paper, they're similar in terms of ram, cpu cores, flash, gpu, etc.

But in practice... there is an absolute world of difference, and we're not talking flagship phones vs cheap ones, we're talking one cheap phone vs a slightly less cheap phone, but still low-mid range.

The screen on the sony sucks by comparison, its all washed out and grey (not IPS), the speakers also suck, the camera sucks, the letters in the SONY logo are falling off it now says SO, the thing is a bastard to hold on to because the case is slippery. It's also just slower for some reason, even though the CPU is faster, so I assume the flash is crappy? And the digitizer sucks, scrolling goes wobbly all the time. (I thought, oh, I'll buy a cheap Sony, they make good stuff... I guess cheap shit is cheap shit no matter whose name is on it.)

and that's Sony, so I can only imagine Blu is worse.

(just FYI, flagships are better at everything in terms of speed, display quality, camera, feeling, etc, but they also do A LOT MORE physically, i.e. they have NFC, they're waterproof, they read fingerprints, they have multiple gyros, etc)

<comment><USER10> Why would you imagine that Blu is worse? Especially on the low end, a lot of the older brands can and do trade heavily on their established name and reputation to sell utter crap. There's little downside to this - as you demonstrated, if someone buys their stuff and it turns out to be a piece of shit they'll often just assume that everything else must be even worse.

From the specs I can find, the R1 HD has a 5-inch 720p IPS display and much better reviews than the Sony Xperia E1 did. Not only that, at the time of its release the E1 was competing with the Moto E which (like its bigger brother) also had an IPS screen and far better reviews than the E1.

<comment><USER37> I agree with this. I bought a Blu R1-HD when my iPhone 6 screen cracked, and decided to wait a few weeks so I could just replace it with an iPhone 7.

The few weeks using the Blu went a lot differently than I expected. The phone is very solid and the overall experience of using the phone is first-rate.

It would be one thing if we were talking about a $599 Android phone compared with a $749 iPhone. But this thing cost me $59 which is in a totally different ballpark. I would simply not have expected it to be anywhere close to iPhone quality but it is.

The only things that are "worse" than an iPhone 6 in my opinion are:

\- the touch screen is slightly less accurate for taps, but this could also be because I'm less accustomed to Android.

\- No compass. GPS works fine but panning the phone around doesn't re-orient the map when navigating which is a feature I like.

There are also several nice features which it has that the iPhones lack, such as support for SD card storage expansion (I immediately added a fast 64GB one I had lying around) and a second SIM card.

Not trying to nitpick features. Buying a R1-HD is like getting a one year old Ferrari for $12K.

<comment><USER64> You two have convinced me to buy an R1-HD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> It seems to be that Samsung is getting a lot of extra scrutiny based on their recall and the news is exploiting this. Phone batteries have been known to overheat and explode for years now and it is in no way brand specific. I think the way Samsung handled the whole situation was above and beyond how other companies may have responded. They identified an issue, and replaced everything.

I am not saying that Samsung could not have made another mistake, but I think it is unreasonable to try and link every single battery issue and explosion under the Samsung brand as something that is a precursor to another giant issue.

This recently happened with an iphone on a plane: [http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/apple-faa- investigatin...](http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/apple-faa- investigating-after-iphone-catches-fire-mid-flight-n543516)

<comment><USER66> "I think the way Samsung handled the whole situation was above and beyond how other companies may have responded."

LOL, you mean like follow the proper legal process for filing a recall in the US? Yeah... they did none of that. What exactly was "above and beyond"?? Seriously, I'm not even joking, I'm genuinely curious as from my perspective they did the absolute bare minimum, and took an insane amount of time to even start addressing such a dangerous defect.

I've worked with companies that had a dangerous defect they discovered before any issues occurred, and the same day they stopped sales, contacted every potentially affected customer directly and requested they stop using the product and sent them a shipping label to get the gear back and replace it at no cost or traveling to a store for the user.

<comment><USER65> I define above and beyond as recalling all of their defective product with no questions asked, offering a substitute while they fix the problem, and then finally replacing the phones to anyone who wants to try them again.

If this is a poor company response please let me know who has done better as I would too like to do business with them instead. Clearly my experiences with companies have been drastically different than yours.

<comment><USER67> Recalling and replacing a product that can spontaneously catch fire is not going "above and beyond". It is the _bare minimum_.

<comment><USER65> What would you have liked to see beyond replacement?

<comment><USER68> Transparency around what the problem was, why it happened, and how it was fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I was on a flight recently and the lady next to me had a large Samsung phone on which she was constantly playing games, etc. and I was very worried.

I was also afraid of questioning if it was a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 because the attendant made an announcement saying people should turn it off and she didn't. Next time I'm not going to be afraid. Can't imagine the consequence if it caught fire at 30,000 feet.

<comment><USER70> I'm much more worried about something like this in a check-in bag, where the fire can spread uncontrollably. At least in cabin you will notice the fire early and can use the fire extinguisher.

<comment><USER71> I don't think lithium batteries are allowed in check luggage. You're supposed to carry them on.

<comment><USER72> Thank God everyone carefully reads and follows the checked luggage rules and regulations! ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Why are we allowing these on airplanes?! Are we waiting for someone to leave one of these devices in their checked luggage so it can start a fire that downs a commercial airliner before banning them?!

</comment><comment><USER74> Well Samsung, that's what you get for using non-replaceable batteries.

I hope that this desaster forces either phone vendors or regulatory agencies to mandate replaceable batteries. The EU got through with mandating micro-USB, after all...

<comment><USER75> So replaceable batteries dont explode?

<comment><USER74> They can, but you can separate the device from the battery in case of recalls, thus preventing natural resource waste.

Also, my Galaxy Note 1 battery blew up on me because I used a cheap charger. I simply took it out, disposed of it at a city waste center, and put in a new battery for 15€. Try this with a "closed" phone. Either you can do it yourself, which requires at minimum 3h time + specialized equipment (e.g. regulated hot air gun), or pay 100€+ to a service center.

Thanks but no thanks to fixed batteries.

<comment><USER67> I can't speak for the Galaxy Note, but when I replaced the battery on my iPhone, it took me perhaps twenty minutes with minimal tools (screwdrivers, suction cup, plastic "spudger" \-- all supplied with the battery) and no prior experience. Could probably do it in half the time with practice.

<comment><USER41> When I took out my Samsung Note 2 battery it took me perhaps ten seconds with no practice either. Twenty minutes for replacing a component they know is going to wear out the quickest of all components is long and a dick move by the company.

<comment><USER67> To give some perspective, this was for a phone that was around 4 years old, and which had been sitting in a box fully discharged for a while, destroying the original battery.

Twenty minutes of work over four years is not a big deal.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ODesk closes accounts in Crimea - <AUTHOR> http://community.odesk.com/t5/Announcements/Freelancers-and-clients-in-Crimea/td-p/59366

<comment><USER2> This raises an interesting and disturbing set of questions about the extraterritorial application of US law in the age of the Internet.

Just the other day PayPal was in the news for cutting off perfectly law abiding cigar shops in Scotland who were selling cigars from Cuba to customers in the UK. US companies can't do business with Cuba, so shut off online sales: [http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/perth- coff...](http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/perth-coffee-shop- users-violating-cuba-trade-law-1-3640707)</comment>


Why Bloom filters work the way they do (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/why-bloom-filters-work-the-way-they-do/

<comment><USER2> He missed the best way to generate hashes. Most people do: [http://spyced.blogspot.com/2009/01/all-you-ever-wanted-to- kn...](http://spyced.blogspot.com/2009/01/all-you-ever-wanted-to-know- about.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Great to see people getting into this useful data structure.

But this blog post makes a simple topic look super complicated. When all the math formulas are not needed to make the explanation work, they come off as just a gratuitous attempt to impress the reader.

By contrast, Jon Bently, in his Programming Pearls 2nd Edition, page 145-146, has a much more concise and understandable description. The other nuances not mentioned fall out intuitively from what he describes there.

I think needlessly complex descriptions of bloom filters are one of the reasons the approach seems less known than it should be.

</comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of "Smaller than Bloom filters"[1] by Adam Langley (who's working on Chrome).

[1] [https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/04/29/filters.html](https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/04/29/filters.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Every time I speak to a group, I take a quick survey as to how many people know what a bloom filter is. Even at the most nerdiest of tech talks, it's rarely above 50%.

It amazes me that this is not something that is taught in school these days (or maybe it is now?), considering it is such a powerful tool in a distributed environment.

<comment><USER6> Really?

Maybe it's environment specific, but bloom filters seem to be the "an aglet is the plastic thing at the end of a shoelace" of CS, ie., the "little know fact" that everyone knows.</comment></comment>


Apple Co-Founder's Allies Take Aim at Hollywood Over 'Steve Jobs' - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-co-founders-allies-take-aim-at-hollywood-over-steve-jobs-1444000308 <comment><USER2> Woz' and Isaacson are pretty damn credible. If someone attacked Bill Gates for being a "bully' or a "jerk" it really wouldn't wash for his humanitarian achievements from education, farming, immunizations, on ad infinitum would blow away any character criticisms.

[http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General- Informatio...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General- Information/Foundation-Factsheet)

Steve Jobs' defenders on the other hand aren't bringing up many stellar character examples. This is a problem for a company that needs "demigod personality" as the face of their brand. Your milage may vary.

(Edit typos and grammar corrected)

<comment><USER3> It's a challenging problem when you're diagnosed with a potentially terminal cancer at just 48 years of age.

Do you spend what may be a short amount of time that you have left on trying to build a foundation to give your wealth away, or do you spend it doing what you enjoy most? Jobs gets viciously and unfairly criticized on this point. If other people ('normal people') choose to pursue what they want to with their remaining time in the face of such a diagnosis, few would dare criticize them.

That becomes an even more important question when you realize that Jobs knew his wife would be fully capable of giving his wealth away after his passing. In the second half of his cancer battle, it was pretty obvious he was not going to survive longer term. So what do you do at 52 or 53 years of age, when it's apparent you're going to die? Do you spend years (which you may not have) trying to build a successful foundation? My personal opinion is that's an absurd premise. The reality is, we'll never know if Jobs would have become a successful philanthropist, or whether he would have focused on his work as Buffett has and leave the giving to eg his wife.

If Bill Gates had been diagnosed with a terminal cancer at 48, and died in his early to mid 50s - it's likely his legacy would look a lot different too. When Gates was 48 in 2003, his public reputation was far different than it is today, he was openly reviled as an abusive monopolist and robber baron with a long reputation for having been mean and abusive to employees.

It's Steve's vast billions that will be given away by Laurene, and he deserves a lot of credit for that, as much as someone like Warren Buffett does for the good his wealth will do. I don't see many examples of Jobs getting a comparable treatment versus what someone like Buffett does on this point however.

edit: if you care to, feel free to explain why you disagree with me, assuming it's not just based on a reflexive need to bash Steve Jobs and not give him credit for any of the good his wealth will do and or has done (while someone like Buffett gets a lot of credit, while performing almost none of the actual philanthropic effort either)

<comment><USER4> > he was openly reviled as an abusive monopolist and robber baron with a long > reputation for having been mean and abusive to employees.

For some people (like me), he isn't anything more. Jobs and Gates were both rather disruptive people. Gates held the entire computer industry back, technologically, and abused his employees to stash wealth. What he does with ill-gotten gains is well and good from an absolute standpoint (no eye toward history), but the damage he did on his watch, doesn't make up for the relatively short-term altruism he has shown. Saving 10 or 100k lives via water treatment and scholarships or sabotaging technological innovation for decades, is not equivalent to me. It's immoral for Gates to take from others so he could make the decision of where that time and to what end to spend some of his lifetime of hoarded wealth.

<comment><USER5> > Gates held the entire computer industry back

The industry does this job well by itself, I doubt things would be much different if Microsoft wasn't around.

> What he does with ill-gotten gains

Yet all transactions that contributed to his gains were voluntary.

<comment><USER6> Technically no, if we're talking about installs of OS on platforms. Bad business decisions and uninformed consumer decisions don't necessarily line up with "voluntary". Voluntary on the part of the manufacturer, yes. But less obviously so on the part of a less informed consumer. And complicated further by the fact that some of those manufacturers later came to regret the deal they entered - specifically that MSFT got a cut of all shipped machines regardless of whether their OS was installed.

<comment><USER5> Ignorance isn't an excuse - otherwise we are the baddies for being at fault for not steering consumers towards better alternatives, not Gates.

> later came to regret the deal they entered - specifically that MSFT got a > cut of all shipped machines regardless of whether their OS was installed.

Then they should've developed their own OS, as they were completely free to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "That said, I think it's a fine movie, brilliantly written and performed and full of humor and feeling. It deviates from reality everywhere — almost nothing in it is like it really happened " Andy Hertzfeld, member of the mac team. He was consulted for the movie.

[http://recode.net/2015/10/02/original-mac-team-member- andy-h...](http://recode.net/2015/10/02/original-mac-team-member-andy- hertzfeld-talks-about-the-hollywood-steve-jobs-qa/)

</comment><comment><USER8> paywall getaround link - [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAGoVChMI8ZjX- ZSqyAIVQqw-Ch1s6QRm&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fapple-co- founders-allies-take-aim-at-hollywood-over-steve- jobs-1444000308&usg=AFQjCNHQnCGbMX8cNNY8o2OucRaEEDi7oQ)

</comment><comment><USER9> It's been a long time since Aaron Sorkin did something that didn't feel like a recent film school grad doing a bad impression of Aaron Sorkin. See The Social Network for a great example.

He's become a weird cliche parody of himself, where every character has the exact same diction and incredible grammar and rapid fire wit. It's like dozens of different actors channeling the ghost of Josh Lyman.

Forgot about accuracy, treat it as a work of fiction and be surprised if it just doesn't suck as a film.

</comment><comment><USER10> >Asked about the movie by "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert recently, Mr. Cook said, "I think a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic and I hate this."

I'm not positive, but I'm willing to bet Cook was talking more about "Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine" with that comment. That movie was a documentary and was quite critical of Steve Jobs.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand why Jobs' friends feel the need to paint him as a saint. He was brilliant and inspiring, but he was also a jerk in inexplicable ways, throughout his life. I imagine if most of us had as much scrutiny as Jobs did over 50 years, the result wouldn't be a clean or tidy screenplay. But it's important to accept his mercurial personality, if only to remind people that great leaders are not at all perfect.

Besides him being horrible to the mother of Lisa...the other unpleasant episode that comes to mind is how he cheated Woz even before Apple began...this is a thing so small and so long past the time that Woz and Jobs became legends and yet Jobs, rather than not admitting what he did, doubles up and points out how Woz would be nothing if Jobs hadn't brought him on to Apple. Isaacson devoted a substantial part of the early chapters to this episode:

> _Recollections differ, but by most accounts Jobs simply gave Wozniak half of > the base fee and not the bonus Bushnell paid for saving five chips. It would > be another ten years before Wozniak discovered (by being shown the tale in a > book on the history of Atari titled Zap) that Jobs had been paid this > bonus._

> _"I think that Steve needed the money, and he just didn't tell me the > truth," Wozniak later said. When he talks about it now, there are long > pauses, and he admits that it causes him pain. "I wish he had just been > honest. If he had told me he needed the money, he should have known I would > have just given it to him. He was a friend. You help your friends."_

> _To Wozniak, it showed a fundamental difference in their characters. "Ethics > always mattered to me, and I still don't understand why he would've gotten > paid one thing and told me he'd gotten paid another," he said. "But, you > know, people are different." When Jobs learned this story was published, he > called Wozniak to deny it. "He told me that he didn't remember doing it, and > that if he did something like that he would remember it, so he probably > didn't do it," Wozniak recalled._

> _When I asked Jobs directly, he became unusually quiet and hesitant. "I > don't know where that allegation comes from," he said. "I gave him half the > money I ever got. That's how I've always been with Woz. I mean, Woz stopped > working in 1978. He never did one ounce of work after 1978. And yet he got > exactly the same shares of Apple stock that I did."_

> _Is it possible that memories are muddled and that Jobs did not, in fact, > shortchange Wozniak? "There's a chance that my memory is all wrong and > messed up," Wozniak told me, but after a pause he reconsidered. "But no. I > remember the details of this one, the $ 350 check." He confirmed his memory > with Nolan Bushnell and Al Alcorn._

> _"I remember talking about the bonus money to Woz, and he was upset," > Bushnell said. "I said yes, there was a bonus for each chip they saved, and > he just shook his head and then clucked his tongue."_

As always, Woz demonstrated his near-infinite compassion and wisdom when Isaacson pressed him on Jobs' deception:

> _Whatever the truth, Wozniak later insisted that it was not worth rehashing. > Jobs is a complex person, he said, and being manipulative is just the darker > facet of the traits that make him successful. Wozniak would never have been > that way, but as he points out, he also could never have built Apple. "I > would rather let it pass," he said when I pressed the point. "It's not > something I want to judge Steve by."_

<comment><USER12> Two serious mistakes of character in his entire life, both of which he more than made amends for (which you failed to mention), and both of which took place while he was young and under stress. Not bad.

Now list the mistakes you've made in your life and let's see how you compare...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I agree with Eddie Cue, Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine, was a hatchet job.

<comment><USER14> How so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The dude was focused on taking over sliver of the meaning of life, a phone and such.

Let Jobs screw Wosniak, take his idea (US Festivals) and pass it off on the music industry, borrow money from Gates, steal from Parc and try to shut down streaming music comapnies while stepping in front of the line for a liver he never used. Not interested.

I like what Google is doing 10000000000000000x better: Google's Company That Wants To Cure Death Now Has Its Own Website [http://www.businessinsider.com/calico-website-google- curing-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/calico-website-google-curing- death-2014-8)

</comment><comment><USER12> I hope Lauren Jobs knows that Steve Jobs will continue to inspire generations of entrepreneurs. He showed Silicon Valley how to change the world in an exciting and delightful way. Every founder is trying their best to follow his example of excellence, whether they acknowledge it or not. Most fall far short.

Anyone trying to create things should study Jobs, and anyone who does study him (with an open mind) will come away with a profound respect for him as a creator and as a person.

As Elon Musk said, "there was a certain magic about Steve Jobs that was really inspiring"

 _Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes._

 _The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them._

 _About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things..._

<comment><USER16> The flip side of that is that we're now about 5 years into the phenomenon of managers and entreprenuers cargo-culting assholeism as a way of acheiving success. Every time I read about some jerk lamenting the fact that his employees like to eat dinner with their families, we have guys like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk to thank for it.

<comment><USER12> Unless you're talking about children, you can safely blame the people themselves for their own behavior.

Most people who worked with Steve Jobs consider it a highlight of their professional careers. He was as demanding of himself as he was of others, and worked as hard as anyone. These are some of the traits that the assholes don't copy.</comment></comment></comment>