Interesting data structures: the BK-tree - rudi-rau http://signal-to-noise.xyz/post/bk-tree/ <comment> fake-name I have a C++ + Cython implementation of a BK-tree that I use for large-scale image deduplication on github: [https://github.com/fake- name/IntraArchiveDeduplicator/tree/m...](https://github.com/fake- name/IntraArchiveDeduplicator/tree/master/deduplicator)

The core is a single, header-only BK-tree implementation here: [https://github.com/fake- name/IntraArchiveDeduplicator/blob/m...](https://github.com/fake- name/IntraArchiveDeduplicator/blob/master/deduplicator/bktree.hpp).

There are also relatively comprehensive unit-tests for the whole thing: [https://github.com/fake- name/IntraArchiveDeduplicator/tree/m...](https://github.com/fake- name/IntraArchiveDeduplicator/tree/master/Tests)

I use it for image deduplication across a ~28M image dataset. It works quite well, though it does take a lot of ram to hold the entire dataset in memory (~18 GB).

<comment><AUTHOR> Out of curiosity: why not store hashes of the images instead of the entire image?

Or even better: a bloom filter to find likely duplicates?

<comment> fake-name The 18 GB is for just the hashes. The dataset is several terabytes.

A bloom filter is useless, as it doesn't let you do searches within an edit distance. Basically, I use a BK-tree of perceptual hashes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_hashing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_hashing)). Then, I can find similar images by searching within a certain edit-distance.

Basically, the end result is a system that functions very similarly to how google's reverse image search works.

<comment><USER2> I used a google paper's approach in a mosaic competition. I didn't end up submitting it, but I got it working.

It uses locality sensitive hashing to hash vectors into buckets. These buckets are a subset of the total set of items. It worked with similar images of a small size when I used it, but I didn't have many images.

In my case, the vectors were just the rgb values of the down-sampled image.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> charles-salvia There are many metric-based data structures, such as M-tree, Vantage Point Tree, etc. They all suffer from the same major problem: they all rely on triangle inequality to speed up search by pruning impossible paths. But this doesn't ever result in an easily measurable complexity guarantee (like say, the guaranteed log(N) of a balanced binary search tree), so it's very common for certain datasets to result in severe performance degradation, particularly when the data is high-dimensional.

Metric-based data structures face the peculiar problem that the identity of each data point itself is not an actual "key", in the way that a data point in a hash-table or binary tree is a key. Rather, each data point in a metric tree is only "indexed" with relation to it's distance from all other keys. This makes it hard to get easily measured performance guarantees.

<comment><USER3> This issue also gets mentioned in the sklearn documentation [0]. The "curse of dimensionality" explains how high dimensional data tends to be close together, making efficient indexing on a distance metric difficult.

I feel like the poster-child for the frequency illusion. There was an article on 538 a few weeks ago that caught my interest which used cosine similarity (a non-metric distance function). I dove in, and started wondering if there were any ways to find nearest neighbors using cosine similarity efficiently. A week later, Facebook's Faiss implements something of a general purpose toolkit for indexing metric and not metric spaces to minimize storage. And now this. _It 's like the world is trying to tell me something!_

[0] [http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/neighbors.html#k-d- tr...](http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/neighbors.html#k-d-tree)

<comment><USER4> If you want to use the triangle inequality with cosine similarity, just use angles instead: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosine_similarity#Angular_dist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosine_similarity#Angular_distance_and_similarity)

EDIT: Deleted calculation about approximating arccos(z) <= arccos(x) + arccos(y) by cos(arccos(z)) <= cos(arccos(x) + arccos(y)) <= xy - (1-x^2)(1-y^2), completely disregarding that cos is a decreasing function in the relevant interval.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice! I released a Python BK-tree module on PyPI recently, along with a write- up about how I'm using it for duplicate image detection:

* [https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pybktree/1.0](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pybktree/1.0) * [http://tech.jetsetter.com/2017/03/21/duplicate-image-detecti...](http://tech.jetsetter.com/2017/03/21/duplicate-image-detection/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Very interesting model that suffers from a couple of things that other data structures solve better IMO. One thing that I don't understand and I guess I have to go back and read the article again, is how the distance from any node X to the arbitrarily selected root M tells me anything about the distance between X and the query term Q. If I live in London and the distance from me to Paris is 50.000 km, and you live in Rome, 70.000 km from Paris, that does not give me enough to calculate the distance between Rome and London.

IMO there is no data structure better suited for a search tree than the doubly-chained character trie [0], as it has the following features:

\- small in memory (every word is stored once at the most, but more often less than once)

\- traversing and doing exact matching allow you to prune half of the tree at every step

\- requires you to calculate the distance only at querying time, not when constructing the tree

\- apart from exact and fuzzy matches also support prefix matches (traverse up to the path of the prefix, return all children that are EndOfWords)

\- can be represented on disk in a way that makes reading insignificantly slower than reading from memory

\- if nodes are lexically sorted when tree is constructed, you have also pretty much solved range queries

[0] [https://github.com/kreeben/resin/blob/master/src/Resin/IO/Lc...](https://github.com/kreeben/resin/blob/master/src/Resin/IO/LcrsTrie.cs)

The trie is to be the perfect tool for when you find yourself combatting big data. What you find out eventually about all of the cloud offerings from all of the big players that claim they will solve both storing and map/reducing over your data is that you can do the same thing on your laptop, for cheap money, as long as the data is represented in a compressed form that still allow for querying. The trie is a zip file and a search engine in one.

Edit: formatting and clarification

<comment><USER7> >If I live in London and the distance from me to Paris is 50.000 km, and you live in Rome, 70.000 km from Paris, that does not give me enough to calculate the distance between Rome and London.

Yes, but you do know that the distance from London to Rome is less than 12,000 km, because of the triangle inequality axiom. So if that's too far, that search path is discarded.

Then we just start the process over again, by comparing each subtree back to the original location.

<comment><USER6> Thanks, The idea behind the BK-tree is ingenious.

I'm struggling with finding a use case for that data structure through. Why would you construct a BK-tree that would only become powerful when it contains millions of words, which would then create a nuisance when representing that amount of data in memory, making it not so fast anymore, when you could represent the same data in a compressed form and with the same (as well as an extended set of) querying capabilities?

Perhaps BK-trees are for big machines with powerful CPUs? I'm sure there is a setup that would make that tree in fact better than any other tree.

<comment><USER8> I don't think the best use case for BK-trees is spell-checking and words. The area in which they are used most successfully is image deduplication. In that case the metric you're going to use is some form of perceptual hashing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article explains why the search algorithm is valid. But it doesn't explain why the tree should be built up in the way described.

Is there some rationale? And can it be extended to non-integer metrics?

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK-tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK-tree)

      A BK-tree is... specifically adapted to discrete metric spaces.

There are others that have a similar principal for real valued metrics.

• Ball Tree (also known as VP-Tree) (implemented in sklearn)

• GH-Tree (rough description in this large PDF [https://github.com/searchivarius/nmslib/raw/master/docs/manu...](https://github.com/searchivarius/nmslib/raw/master/docs/manual.pdf) )

• Multi-Vantage Point Tree

As for the rationale, I think grouping them together is an efficient way to exploit the triangle inequality for each subtree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK-tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK-tree)

</comment><comment><USER11> I like the reference to a metric, which I always felt could be a useful approach to many problems, including in AI. Re spell-checking, I wonder whether there is an algorithm that uses topography (i.e. vicinity of keys) to assist with the correction...

<comment> charles-salvia There is ... a crude spell checker could be implemented by dumping a dictionary of words into a metric tree and using levenshtein distance (or damerau-levenshtein distance) as the distance function. The spell check would then consist of doing a K nearest neighbor lookup.

But it doesn't work as well as you expect. A metric tree requires a _true_ metric to be used as the distance function, which means the distance function must satisfy both symmetry and triangle inequality. Levenshtein distance satisfies this - but unfortunately this usually isn't enough for a robust spell-checker that just "does the right thing". For that, you usually need something like a weighted levenshtein distance (e.g., an incorrect first character should weigh more than an incorrect Nth character, or an incorrect consonant should weigh more than an incorrect vowel). But it is much harder to guarantee that such a distance function is a true metric.

<comment><USER12> Well for a spell checker its not too unreasonable to require the triangle inequality, if there's some series of possible typos to get from word A to word B then the distance between A and B shouldn't be more than the total 'edit distance' of the typos, however you measure it.

Making things symmetrical might not make as much sense though, omitting a letter might be far more likely than adding an additional letter, for instance. Assuming it satisfies all other axioms you should be able to turn this into a true metric, by just measuring the distance both ways and taking the average.

Then again it looks like the BK-tree might not need the symmetry axiom, at least not in an obvious way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The idea of representing a large corpus in a compressed form and learning both concepts as well as semantics about that corpus is facinating to me. A tree like the one described in the article measures semantic distance, much like a character trie does. What data structure support storing or calculating conceptual distances? I've read about word2vec and the mechanics behind the training process but never how that looks in memory or when serialized to disk.

Also, is there a link between the sematic and conceptual distance between two terms, does anyone know?

It would surprise me if there was such a correlation, because the concepts of "near" are different in the semantic and conceptual world. Then again, it would be facinating if there was.

</comment><comment><USER13> Minor quibble: It says std::deque is a doubly linked list, but that's what std::list is.

FWIW, Deque is actually more like a vector.

<comment><USER8> Mhm maybe in C++ a deque is a vector of vectors (in stdlibc it's just a double pointer to T IIRC). In Python it's a doubly-linked list of blocks: [https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Modules/_colle...](https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Modules/_collectionsmodule.c#L24)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very nicely written post. Always great to know there are Data Structures for solving most problems efficiently.

<comment><USER15> Yes interesting stuff. Seems similar in nature to "Vantage Point" trees.

[http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=130](http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=130)

<comment><USER16> All the images under the "How searching a VP-Tree works" are broken :/

<comment><USER15> oh bummer, it was working six months ago...

Wayback machine to the rescue!

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160629190654/http://stevehanov...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160629190654/http://stevehanov.ca/blog/index.php?id=130)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Data structures and algorithms were in general use, a textbook detail a few years ago. Why the current day renaissance and emphasis?

<comment><USER6> Because today we're wondering a whole lot about how to represent big data in memory over many machines if you're problem is in such a way divisable, or on one machine if possible because what we want to do is to draw conclusions from that data, by querying it, and if we find a way to both store big data cheaply in a form where it is still queryable, then we have solved a problem most businesses today tamper with, that is what do I do with all this data?

Businesses are getting crushed under the weight of their data. They "solve" it by stashing it onto Hadoop. Unfortunately, no one then knows how to map/reduce over that data. So they're none the wiser even though they kept the data that could have made their analysts smarter than their competitor's. This of course totally awsome if you're a Hadoop consultant.

Well, that's at least why I dwell on data structures.

Edit: spelin

<comment><USER17> I suspected so, but couldn't have stated it nearly so well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I had a similar idea last week in the car, cool to see it's actually a thing

</comment><comment><USER19> Why did this get [flagged]? Is that solely user reports? It seems like a good link.

<comment><USER20> At work I got: Cyber Security - Web URL Blocked

Which might be related?

<comment><USER8> I'm the author of the post. Could you help me figure out what is triggering the warning?

<comment><USER20> I don't get a lot of info, but the URL (*.xyz) is kind of odd and might be the issue?

<comment><USER8> Weird, I don't see why a whole TLD would be blocked. Even Alphabet uses it!

I chose it because .io was way too expensive for my student budget and xyz looked cool.

<comment><USER21> I hate to say this, but on the server I manage at my day job, I've never, ever seen legitimate email traffic from an .xyz domain, or a .club, .rocks, .work, or any other "gold rush" TLD. Nothing but snowshoe spam/phishing/malware, to the point that my policy is "block on sight."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Golang: Writing unit tests and isolating dependencies - <AUTHOR> https://blog.alexellis.io/golang-writing-unit-tests/ <comment><USER2> Good introduction!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - it should cover most of what you need to start testing your Go code. What would you like to see next?</comment></comment>


Birth and death of privacy - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/the-birth-and-death-of-privacy-3-000-years-of-history-in-50-images-614c26059e#.ydy8x23v3 <comment><USER2> Youtube says the embedded (Rome) video is private. No irony there!

Very informative article.</comment>


Netflix to lose Starz, its most valuable source of new movies - <AUTHOR> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/09/netflix-to-lose-starz-its-most-valuable-source-of-new-movies.html <comment><USER2> "However, executives at Starz apparently concluded that they would lose even more money by giving consumers a reason to subscribe to Netflix instead of the cable channel."

I don't think they get it. The landscape has changed and I'm not going back.

I don't have cable. I don't have satelite. I don't have an antenna for broadcast TV. I have the Internet serving content to my TV via my Xbox, and I use it to watch Netflix.

If your content isn't available on Netflix. I'm not consuming your content. Period.

I'm done bending over backwards. I'm done with schedules. I'm done with managing the space on my DVR. I'm done keeping up with new episodes and seasons. I'm done with movie theaters full of loud other people who aren't me, and the litany of other issues that have been discussed to death from overpriced tickets, to concessions, to 3D projector woes and content. I'm done with physical media getting scratched. Hell, I'm even done with sketchy torrent sites, and different scene groups fighting over who gets to release what, and a billion codecs and formats. I'm done with it. I'm done.

So frankly, good bye and good riddance to Starz. Go climb this hill and die upon it. I never liked the fact that their schizophrenic content releases would appear during a timed window, only to disappear from my list later before I actually got a chance to watch it. I grew to avoid movies labeled with the Starz logo, and my heart would sink when a feature would open with one, because I knew the experience was fleeting and I wouldn't be able to enjoy the content later. So I'm done with that too.

<comment><USER3> I'm in the same boat as you. I cut the cord about 5 months ago and haven't looked back. I have Netflix and Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Apple TV. I know I am missing out on a lot of great content and it pisses me off...until I get my bill, which is a fraction of what I was paying before. Also, the convenience of my current setup is unmatchable.

The thing is, like you said, the technology has changed. I want shows on my current setup. I am willing to pay more for more content. One thing I thought was very interesting is Apple removing TV show rentals. I never purchase movies or TV shows. I like to rent them, watch them once and I usually don't want to watch them again. If I do, I will rent it again.

Why can't content providers understand this? Netflix and Hulu need to start creating their own content, which I know they are both working towards.

One semi-related note: AMC is ending Breaking Bad next season because of Madmen sucking up the budget - Netflix and Hulu: go buy that show! I would gladly pay for a show-specific season pass just to watch Breaking Bad.

<comment><USER4> > AMC is ending Breaking Bad next season because of Madmen sucking up the > budget

Thankfully, that's not going to happen. AMC tried cutting BrBa back to only 6 episodes next season. But Sony owns the rights to the show, so they shopped it around. AMC caved. For all the press Mad Men gets, Breaking Bad has ~2x the viewers per episode, and Walking Dead (which had it's budget cut due to Mad Men's cost) gets about ~2.5x the viewers.

[Edit: Removed my snarky comment about AMC's management.]

<comment><USER5> To AMC's credit, the CPM AMC receives for Mad Men is much higher: $34 instead of $12-$25. It could be because people pay attention to the commercials, since the show is about advertising. A cynic would say it's a prestige thing for media buyers to get their ads run on Mad Men.

[http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.printFrie...](http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.printFriendly&art_aid=147874)

<comment><USER6> You mean classy ad campaigns like this one?

[http://main.stylelist.com/2010/08/05/dove-mad-men- commercial...](http://main.stylelist.com/2010/08/05/dove-mad-men-commercial/)

<comment><USER7> While I agree with the original poster, i.e., those who are already using netflix are unlikely to go back, netflix is supposed to be a growth business (P/E of > 60), ergo, if this leads to less growth, that will be terrible terrible terrible for the company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://www.businessinsider.com/reed-hastings-heres-why- netfl...](http://www.businessinsider.com/reed-hastings-heres-why-netflix-let- starz-walk-away-2011-9)

Reed Hastings replies:

"Because we've licensed so much other great content, Starz content is now down to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers' viewing. As we add a huge more content in Q4, we expect Starz content to naturally drift down to 5-6% of domestic viewing in Q1. We are confident we can take the money we had earmarked for Starz renewal next year, and spend it with other content providers to maintain or even improve the Netflix experience."

<comment><USER9> This sounds like spin. I remember seeing the Starz logo on almost everything I watched, when I had Watch Instantly on Netflix. I canceled when they raised the price to $16 for DVD+streaming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Unless they've got a better deal with Hulu or someone else, they've just cut off their nose to spite their face. Old media are _amazingly_ good at being blind to the paradigm shift that will kill them, even when they have the opportunity to make money from that paradigm shift.

The options Starz (and every other premium cable provider) have right now are these:

1\. Get that content online, now, in a convenient form that is cost competitive with Netflix and Hulu or at least Amazon Video on Demand.

Or:

2\. Stagnate and eventually die, because the subscriber base for pay cable is going to do just that. Only old people are going to have cable in two or three years.

There are no other options. Without Netflix or Hulu, if Starz doesn't have the ability to launch their own effective pay service online, they will never see any of my money (they probably wouldn't anyway; as others have mentioned, Starz videos tended to be ones I avoided due to quality problems). I have never had cable in my life...but I pay to consume premium content online. I have both Netflix and Hulu+ accounts, and I spend an average of $10 a month on movie rentals and purchases at Amazon. I'm a _new_ customer; an entirely new revenue stream. I didn't cancel cable to use Netflix. I used Netflix because it was the only way I was going to watch TV and movies at home. I'm where their growth could come from, and they don't want it.

<comment><USER11> False dichotomy. The smart move is what they're probably going to do; ride cable as long as they can, while profiting wildly, then transitioning towards the internet when the margins on cable become too tight. Since they own the rights to the content they'll have no problems opening their own internet channels.

<comment><USER10> I don't think it is. By the time they're finished riding the cable profit train into the ground, they'll find a market with all new players to compete against, in exactly the same way the music industry is playing out. There are more indies now than ever, and they're selling more records now than ever. The pie keeps getting bigger, but the old players are claiming a smaller and smaller percentage of the total pie. I believe the same will be true of video. There aren't a ton of indie movies and series being produced, but _some_ are, and that number will increase over time.

In two years or three, when HBO, Showtime, and Starz finally decide that they want my money, I'll be hooked on shows from other providers. I won't go the extra mile to sign up for their puny little service that offers me a few series and a few movies, when Netflix and Hulu are offering me hundreds of shows and movies for less than 10 bucks a month.

I just bought a new point and shoot camera for about two hundred bucks. It can shoot 1080p video. The same revolution that happened in music is about to happen in movies and TV, and for the same reasons...it'll go faster, though, because of YouTube and the more advanced Internet culture.

<comment><USER12> "I just bought a new point and shoot camera for about two hundred bucks. It can shoot 1080p video. The same revolution that happened in music is about to happen in movies and TV."

But the music revolution - low-cost converters and mics, powerful laptops and inexpensive software - lets me record a good-quality pop track in my living room, minus live drums. Can you do set construction, lighting and shooting cheaply in yours? Or does the movie revolution require way more CGI than the music revolution required reverbs?

<comment><USER10> I'm just going to bookmark this comment, and someday I'll come back to it and have a chuckle about how short-sighted it is.

A good music recording studio costs more than many movie sets...and yet, people manage to make records that sell hundreds of thousands of copies with a few thousand bucks worth of gear. I've worked on records and movies and in television. I have _complete_ confidence that great films and great television shows will be made by independent artists in the coming years.

Some early proof:

<http://www.watchtheguild.com> \- Shot with Canon DSLR cameras, mostly in bedrooms.

<http://www.drhorrible.com> \- Cost $200k to make, and included seriously high end talent, like NPH and Captain Mal. Netflix and Hulu could easily fund shows like this. Or, an independent production company could start turning out series along these lines. It takes far fewer viewers to pay back $200k than it takes to pay back a million an episode...and every eyeball that is watching Dr. Horrible is _not_ watching Weeds or whatever content Starz has exclusive rights to.

Or, just browse WikiPedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_television_series>

A huge amount of money is not required to make something fun to watch, and the number of people who realize it will only increase with time.

I'm surprised someone on HN could be so short-sighted as to think that just because the old way of doing things can never be replicated on a tiny budget, it doesn't mean entertainment will not be produced in new ways on much smaller budgets. Doesn't matter how it's produced, or if it is up to the standards of high end movies. All that matters is that some people (even small numbers for any given film) tune into the new media rather than the old, and I'm certain some people will. I don't know anyone under the age of 30 that hasn't watched both the Guild and Dr. Horrible. That's what the future looks like, at least one aspect of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is the right move for Starz. They should focus on moving onto the iPad and the app/channel stores for Apple TV and the next-gen Google TV.

Re-upping would only antagonize their existing content partners who they also have to renegotiate contracts with. Plus it is probably killing their subscriptions on traditional outlets ("Starz? Oh, no thanks, that's the one I get on Netflix"). At least this way they can turn off the spigot and entice people to subscribe before Netflix is primarily cord-cutters anyway.

As for the way forward, licensing to Netflix is not exactly a forward-looking move -- Starz just a licensing middleman in this arrangement and they know it. They need to control a branded and coherent channel, not be a movie broker.

Starz was valuable because of their mainstream movie content. Despite comments about bittorrent, the major value of Starz on Netflix is about 8-year-old girls being able to watch Tangled on an Xbox 360 (again and again...). It has been huge for rounding out Netflix's pitch as an alternative to rental.

But to hear Reed talk about it, he probably was negotiating with the expectation that they'd be parting ways (how could they fix the Sony thing?) and so Netflix may not have been offering as much as last time anyway. I don't think the negotiations failing caught either side flat-footed.

I think these companies can focus better on their revenue when they're separated. Netflix will have to overpay to get their first big chunk of studio newish-releases, but that's okay. They'll have some different stuff and get creative and I bet we'll like the result.

Starz can figure out how to sell themselves to consumers without chopping themselves up. How? Well, every current Apple TV has 8GB of flash memory and Apple has put an App Store on every other platform they own, so you can see where that's going. And Google has gone double-or-nothing on Google TV for that reason. It sure seems like the Apple TV is the cable box of the future. Is Starz well-positioned to become a subscription service on the Apple TV? Sure. But maybe not if people can go next door to the Netflix app and get Starz movies there too.

Seems like the right thing is happening here. I like where this is going.

<comment><USER11> Good post. I disagree about Apple TV. I think they don't want to have an app store. I think they're fine with adding sports channels, but for movies they want you to buy them through iTunes. They'd love a deal with Starz, through iTunes. I don't think they want competing middlemen on their platform though.

<comment><USER13> I think they're fine with sharing their platform with as many other services as want to be on there -- and that play by their rules. I think there are two clues to Apple's approach:

1\. They're clearly evolving their offering towards purchasing -- notably, they just killed TV show rentals. Why _stop_ offering rentals of TV shows, as unpopular as they may be? This was a major selling point of the ATV last year. It seems like they're laying the foundation for their fall announcement, but they had to do this a little early because the fall season starts soon. I presume that the announcement will be that they're leaving everything but purchases and movie rentals to the world of ATV apps. Movie rental I think they are still trying to evolve against the studio's feet-dragging. But TV shows are essential to an app store, so the new deal will be: You want to watch a TV show? Buy it or get the app. No confusing in-between option. Apple _hates_ in-between options.

2\. Their subscription policy. I think they definitely wanted to pick something that worked for the Apple TV as well. The brouhaha over those rules has subsided for now. But it's a lot harder to tell people to go buy or subscribe to something over the web when they're just sitting in front of an Apple TV. That's way more friction. You might as well tell them to call an 800 number. I think that's something that makes an Apple TV app store viable -- you almost have to have that rule, whereas it seemed kind of excessive on traditional iOS devices.

And yes, they want you to buy movies and music only from Apple, but on iOS they have no problem with people using Pandora or Netflix or HBO apps which they get no money for. Because they're services, just like Netflix and the sports channels you mention. But on AppleTV, there will probably be more takers for the 30% split and Apple may go with a subscription-only model (i.e. no one-time-purchase apps at all). This is presuming they only allow video- based apps (wot, no Angry Birds?!?) that you could just call "channels". That is, very similar to the existing ATV apps.

In fact, I think a secondary reason that Apple even created the new Netflix app, new YouTube app and sports apps is to work out and test the AppleTV's API and design. I presume they'll still be around in a new-look ATV in the same way that the YouTube app is still on every iOS device -- Apple doesn't like to lose control. They're just going to be the founding members of a club of thousands.

<comment><USER11> We're not that far off; I think that is something Apple would do. But that's Apple going directly to content producers and making deals with them. That's not something Amazon, Hulu, Veoh, or Crackle could ever be part of (Netflix probably would get grandfathered in). Those are other middle men. Apple wants to be the middle man.

It's a really tough sell though. Right now Starz or ABC or whoever can create a subscription channel on Roku, X-Box, Playstation, and I highly doubt they would have to pay anywhere near 30% (My guess is that those platforms are happy to have the content, and allow the apps for free).

<comment><USER13> I think a lot of companies would stick with subscribe-outside apps. Again, same rules as the iPad, so that's okay. Netflix and Hulu would for sure. But:

There are 200,000,000 iTunes accounts with credit cards.

I really can't fault the established video subscription services for keeping at it, but wow. Can they really resist the power of the App Store?

Now, the interesting thing happens outside of the mainstream. If you're Major League Lacrosse, or a yet-to-launch uncensored rap video channel, or SOAPnet (ABC's soap opera channel that a month ago curiously backtracked on their February 2012 announced end date), CurlTV (an online live curling video site that folded earlier this year) or one of many other special interest channels (actual or potential), you're _really_ interested in becoming a subscription channel on Apple TV. Just imagine hundreds and hundreds of those channels and you have a platform that appeals to people on a very personal level that cable can't touch.

To be honest, I'm in LA and this almost seems like I'm talking myself into starting up a consultancy specializing in Apple TV apps. Combine hard-to-find assets (iOS developers) and a presumed gold rush with an industry starting to decline (but still flush with cash) and you have a pretty nice business.

<comment><USER11> Those channels are already popping up on Roku (Wealth TV is one example). I think Apple TV can do it too, I just don't think they can play the "we're Apple" card and have everyone pay them that way when there are competing platforms with just as large user bases (X-Box and Playstation for example) offering a better deal. I'm sure Apple wants in to the market, but only if it's wildly profitable.

So far it doesn't look like being a box provider is going to be wildly profitable. The prices have been driven down to $100 - $200 tops so you're not making money on the hardware and there are too many competitors who want content to really make money through subscriptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My son turned a year old a few weeks ago. He's going to grow up choosing content on demand from our Roku. Maybe some WonderPets from Netflix. Or a current TV show from Hulu. Or the latest viral video of some kid a year older than him rocking out the Beatles on the drums on YouTube.

He won't be familiar with linear television schedules, or the idea of running home in time for a show. To him, our TV will be the place where he chooses what to watch, when he wants to watch it.

What these stupid studio executives don't understand is their grandchildren will be doing the same thing. Whether they like it or not.

<comment><USER15> Have you seen <http://www.netflix.com/kids>

<comment><USER14> No, but I've noticed Netflix definitely doesn't lack in children's programming. It's insane! This is pretty sweet too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't have cable TV. Hell, I don't have a TV. I watch about 3 hours of TV... per week. And you think I'm going to pay for cable to get your movies? Heh.

Fact is, $8/month for Netflix is all I can justify and I justify that largely based on TV reruns than movies. Add in Hulu (not Plus) and that's my limit.

Given all that if I could just get HBO Go without subscribing to cable, I'd gladly fork over maybe even $20/month. As it stands, I can't justify spending >$100/month for the "privilege" so I guess I have to continue relying on, well, other sources.

<comment><USER17> I do have a big TV, but it's mostly for games and Netflix, via a PS3. Oh, and there's also a PC next to it, browsing the Internet on a large screen is awesome. :)

So that's it, it's just a big screen.

<comment><USER18> _So that's it, it's just a big screen._

The TV we watch most often is a Panasonic 42" commercial plasma display. Just a big monitor. No tuner, no speakers, just a screen and some inputs.

One of those inputs is a Tivo, and 1/2 of the time we're watching Netflix through it. 1/4 of the time we're watching torrented shows off of a WD media player box. The other 1/4 of the time we're watching the local news, or listening to it in the background (for what purpose I'm not sure, it's mostly garbage).

I had digital cable for about 3 months earlier this year. Decided to finally try it. And, after 3 months, decided it wasn't worth it.

The US is moving away from the old "broadcast" models quickly. People almost don't even care about the actual content, to the extent that there are many viable options to fill a block of time with various programs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well, guess I have no choice but to subscribe to starz.

Oh wait, their network is pretty much irrelevant to me, I have watched a few of their movies on netflix and I like Torchwood (although parts of this season have sucked) and Spartacus. Other that I honestly couldn't care less and I won't be spending a dime on their second rate premium channel.

When does their deal with Disney and Sony expire? Can't imagine they would go with starz over netflix.

<comment><USER20> Torchwood? I tried, I really did to purchase Miracle Day on iTunes, Amazon, Netflix - wasn't able to. I was _happy_ to give them my money - but they didn't provide me a mechanism (and "Cable" or "Satellite" was last considered a reasonable channel by me about 8 years ago. )

I think everyone here realizes where all the up-to-date Torchwood episodes could be found after I finally gave up looking for someone to take my money.

Ideally the marketplace will resolve these issues, and companies that fail to understand that their business model now has to be centered around providing content that people want, rather than forcing their "packages", will disappear while those that understand how to serve their customers will rise to the top. (And get my money while they're at it)

<comment><USER21> Torchwood can be found on iPlayer, since it's BBC. My BluRay player/PVR has an iPlayer 'app', and will even do streaming HD. It's great.

Netflix in the UK have a hard time competing with iPlayer, and the BBC's content generally. The main reason people pay for TV content of any kind here is sports.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm sure that Starz gets it: the future of content is streaming. Everybody gets it. And it's frustrating that we don't have everything streaming today b/c the technology is there and has been there for some time. But the bottom line is that cable is still alive and well today, and the margins are much better there than what Netflix is offering.

Pirating is not the burning platform here like it was for music. Netflix is not iTunes. Content providers still have the option to make plenty of money through cable and they're going to do just that until that medium becomes completely disrupted and they no longer have that as a lucrative channel. Starz sees Netflix streaming as cannibalizing their cable business, and to a reasonably large extent they're probably right b/c Netflix streaming has gone mainstream. The day will come when cable will no longer support Starz (and others') content and they know it's coming. Until then, sad to say but this is just smart business.

</comment><comment> mkr-hn Give this whole mess ten years. Netflix or something like it will buy up companies like Starz and HBO in the bankruptcy. A self-solving problem.

<comment><USER23> Starz I can see, but HBO? Content trumps all and HBO is one of the best content producers there is. No matter what happens, they will continue to find ways to make money so long as they keep delivering.

Personally I would expect Netflix to be gone in 10 years unless they start producing their own content.

<comment> mkr-hn Depends on whether or not they open Go up after it's clear that the cable companies aren't capable of dealing with the modern world.

<comment><USER23> I don't think it does. Even if Go sucks and goes down in flame, they'll be able to find someone willing to pick up their programming. And most likely at a premium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I for one am extremely tired of this kind of stuff happening and as a result, never knowing wheat I can watch, and can't watch, with Netflix streaming.

Two weeks ago, my son and I were watching LOTR and had to pause for some travel. When we got back, I was puzzled that I couldn't find a way to get it back on to finish...turns out their contract expired.

How is this OK for a company in this day and age? I'm tired of giving Netflix a pass because the content partners aren't playing fair. I'm sorry, but that's your business model, and now that you put the competition out of business, I need you to perform and not act like a 10 day old startup.

Screw both TV and video. If this is how it's going to be, I'm out. I'll stick to This Week in Startups, 5by5, and my book collection.

<comment><USER25> Piracy has none of these problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "However, executives at Starz apparently concluded that they would lose even more money by giving consumers a reason to subscribe to Netflix instead of the cable channel."

s/subscribe to Netflix/download from bittorrent

The level of disconnect is shocking, however I doubt the Netflix guys are sweating it. No one is going cancel instant content for $8/mo based on Starz backing out.

</comment><comment><USER27> I watch a goodly percentage of my content through Netflix instant, and I actively avoid the Starz provided content. It's never in HD, and even for that the quality varies from middling to almost poor. I've watched a couple of things from Starz, but mostly it's because I didn't notice until I had my heart set on watching it.

So, I don't really care if Netflix loses this. I hope it lets them be more aggressive at doing new deals to get movies.

<comment><USER28> I hope that this frees up some more capital for them to do direct deals with production houses (like their Lionsgate deal). I know that Sony already bolted from Netflix (via Starz), but perhaps directly dealing with the studios (and more money) will help Netflix start to get more current movies faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is a stupid (or desparate) move by Starz, but it also shows the weakness of Netflix: if you rely on someone else for content (same goes for API) for revenue, theye can screw you up (e.g. there goes 11% of our valuation), even if it's in the short term. I think Netflix should be more aggressive in creating own content (key to HBO's success). They are already moving in this direction but very slowly. Why doesn't Netflix outsource content (to film & journalism schools or just YouTube era amateurs) and stream it theirselves?

<comment><USER30> The real question in my mind is "what is Netflix bringing to the table?" I mean, there's no reason Starz can't set up its own download channel right next to Netflix and Amazon on my Roku, is there? Why should they give Netflix a cut?

<comment><USER31> >what is Netflix bringing to the table?

My credit card. I'm not going to sign up for 5 different sites for content as each network puts up its own little fiefdom.

<comment><USER30> For Roku, at least, I think the way it works is you give your credit card once and then you select channels through Roku. So in this case it's not any less convenient.

It made sense to go with Netflix when nobody else really had a streaming implementation, and Netflix had its own advertising the content providers could piggyback off of. But these days more and more people are getting content through third party boxes that already act as payment processors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I have been critical of Netflix in the past for the quality of their streaming material. Honestly, I like Netflix most because if I see a Starz movie on my cable box I know I can watch it later on Netflix. I dont have Starz.

What I do have though is HBO. I pay for it in my cable bill, but they also let me stream 100% of their content using HBO GO. I admit HBO GO has a long way to go and isn't the online video store, but for quality shows to stream it is hard to beat.

This seems like a big blow for netflix; I thought the streaming material was consistently getting better, this will make it worse.

</comment><comment><USER33> Starz was breaking new ground for cable tv content providers. Now they decide to return to the stone age? Of course their internal numbers might tell a different story, but this still seems shortsighted.

<comment><USER34> It never would've really worked because Starz is an unnecessary middleman through this whole process. Netflix should be dealing with the studios directly. Prices would always be higher since Starz wants their cut of the action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> As long as Netflix keeps streaming Korean crime movies and Japanese dystopia movies and Scandinavian crime/thriller movies and The Third Man, I could give a rats ass about Starz.

<comment><USER36> Yeah! I have ;earned to really like South Korean SciFi because of Netflix. (Unfortunately, my wife always leaves the room when I watch this stuff).

The world is full of interesting material to watch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm assuming most people here have Netflix and do not have cable. Here is Starz' dilemma: Let's take all cable subscribers and consider them potential Starz customers. They can A. Pay $15/month to get Starz or B. Pay $8/month to get Netflix + Starz. They would all choose B. Now let's take all the non-cable subscribers and call them potential Starz customers. Starz technically wants to keep this too, but they would lose out on all the customers in the 1st scenario, which make them more money. Thus, their unfortunate decision.

As consumers, we need to wage war against cable companies by not subscribing. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do considering quality sports programming is dominantly viewed via cable and the like.

<comment><USER38> Sportswise, you can get a lot of stuff on ESPN3 now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Take a look at this:

<http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110901-715069.html>

@bittermang : true, going back is painful and networks & cable operators are probably aware of this. But, as wsj puts it - investors of netflix are scared that its expenditure on the content deals will overtake their revenue and with netflix threatening the existence of so many network companies, netflix soon has to create its own content OR devise an extraordinary plan to sustain the network grudges against it.

It will be interesting to see individual networks starting up their own streaming services.

</comment><comment><USER40> Not specifically Starz, but the idea about how to handle all of the different cable networks has been on my mind for awhile now. Here's a question for Comcast, Time Warner, and all of the other service providers out there: why don't you quit wasting time and compete with Netflix? The one thing cable and satellite companies have that Netflix doesn't is a large collection of long- standing relationships with networks. With a bit of work, cable/satellite providers could easily build a system just like Netflix.

Offer a web-based, a la carte service. All content is presented just like Netflix in a VOD package. Users sign up for an account and are given the option to pick out which networks they want to receive content from. Any network can be dropped/added whenever the user wants.

Worried about costs? Tier the service out: $29.99 a month gets you 10 networks, $49.99 gets you 20, and so on so forth. No real change to what's taking place now aside from customers being happy and being allowed to access content whenever they want, wherever they want.

Oh, and let's not forget the social layer that would fit beautifully on top of this. Allow users to easily post episodes/networks to Facebook/Twitter/etc. Facilitate a conversation between people watching a show. Each show page has a comments section where fans can discuss what they just watched/are watching.

Just the beginning of ideas for this. If you want to keep discussing (hint: I'd love to), shoot me an email: firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment><comment><USER41> What this makes clear is that we need standards.

If there was a standard way of getting video from the producer to the consumer then producers could either go through middle-men (like Netflix) or host the videos themselves, and it wouldn't matter at all to the viewer.

I want to sit in front of my TV (or iPad, or laptop), choose some video from the biggest menu in the history of mankind, and watch it. I have no interest in who produced it, or who shipped me the bits. And I shouldn't have to have.

<comment><USER42> We _have_ standards. Anyone can play an x264 file. Anyone can play an MPG. Wrap whatever media player you like around them.

But... the standards don't have DRM.

If you could buy videos like you could buy MP3s off of Amazon, and nobody flipped out about the DRM, we wouldn't need middlemen to do the job of standing up for their customers and making sure the videos actually work, which they basically wouldn't if the studios had their way, unopposed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Everyone is looking negatively at Starz, but I imagine there might be some outside pressures from the cable providers, Starz main source of revenue, to not continue. They are in a tough position. We've seen online services set back with this, and the recent Fox - hulu waiting period. I imagine these cable providers are not ready to give up yet.

<comment><USER44> Waiting periods don't bother me. There is so much content out there there's always something I haven't seen yet.

<comment><USER45> They don't bother me either. The torrent sites always have content available minutes after broadcasts conclude. Hours for 1080p.

Shocking how much the content providers fail to provide content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> "Because we've licensed so much other great content, Starz content is now down to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers' viewing. "

How about "Because all Sony films disappeared from Starz, Starz content is now down to about 8% of domestic Netflix subscribers' viewing." That would be more honest

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder if this shot across Netflix's bow (which it likely is, way too early to definitively walk away), combined with Netflix's lower (base) digital subscription, will open the door to premium Netflix packages -- Starz as a premium add-on for $5/mo.

That might create tons of new opportunities network content bundles or al a carte show seasons, and mute the furor over the digital-only switch. For $15/mo. you might be able to get Netflix Streaming + Starz + Breaking Bad.

</comment><comment><USER48> I think that there is sufficient hatred for cable and satellite TV that people who are on the instant streaming only plan will pay for a DVD plan as well. Currently I am on streaming only but would rather pay for a DVD plan than for cable. It's much cheaper this way.

I think an unintended consequence of this is that Netflix ends up making more money.

</comment><comment><USER49> Netflix streaming doesn't have waynes world and many of these movies I would love to watch... how much more do i have to pay to get this content legally? Who's up for making a grooveshark for movies? ;)

</comment><comment><USER50> At least Netflix seems to have good PR on this occasion.

</comment><comment><USER51> Both companies are posturing. I expect a new deal in the end.

</comment><comment><USER52> Astraweb, SabNZBd, Sickbeard, nzbmatrix. Never going back.

<comment><USER53> Shhhh, don't tell everyone!

<comment><USER52> Hehe, sorry.</comment></comment></comment>


MasterCard to release open API - <AUTHOR> http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/newsroom/mc_launching_new_open_api_developer_portal.html

<comment><USER2> The most exciting thing about this was:

>In addition to payments, MasterCard has identified approximately 20 platforms and services that it plans to open up to developers via the portal. These platforms and services provide additional functionality and enhancements to MasterCard's payment capabilities. The Open APIs will further enhance the development of new applications and systems beyond those currently available, including CRMs, ERPs, online games, merchant e-commerce web sites, eWallets, mobile applications, and payroll systems.

I think this could get really interesting.</comment>


Bitcoin network surpasses 3 PH/s - <AUTHOR> http://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate

<comment><USER2> Didn't we just see headlines 3 days ago about crossing over the 2 PH/sec mark? Holy crap.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Chinese are switching on their new lower-powered ASIC mining rigs.</comment>


A MeToo Reckoning in China's Workplace Amid Wave of Accusations - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/world/asia/china-metoo.html <comment><USER2> Having worked in several Chinese tech co's, this is not in the least surprising to me. In one company I worked in, the CEO used the girls in the office like his personal harem. Women are hired based on looks and age, and whether they are married or not.

The one surprising thing, to me, is that the accusations are gaining traction, which is good to hear.

<comment><USER3> If the traction is informationally contained to enemies of those in positions of power, that would be pretty insincere, but if they let it happen and managed to create a new standard for how people in power should act in private-- that would be good news.

<comment><USER4> I mean, if the accusations are true, then who cares who it hurts.

The injustice would be that OTHER people aren't being brought to justice, not that one group IS.

<comment><USER5> You're getting downvoted because you're failing to see the bigger picture here, in much the same way journalists deciding "even if we got handed this by the russians, it's true, so we should publish it" is missing the bigger picture.

Not to say that we shouldn't seek justice against these people, but that blindly making good local decisions may not end up with good global decisions.

<comment><USER6> Well wouldn't the reverse also be just as bad and exploitable? The classic is 'ignore misconduct because it might help 'the enemy' make us look bad' is in itself failing to see the big picture and one of the oldest ones in the book for the wicked to retain power.

The proper solution morally of course is to reject false-dichotomies and oppose wrong on all sides - especially within 'your own'.

<comment><USER5> You're right, "ignore misconduct because it might help 'the enemy' make us look bad" has its own downsides, but the answer isn't "who cares who it hurts".

There are many ways to deal with misconduct - letting adversaries weaponize information against your own at a time they choose with no care for the implications is probably not the best way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have spent a good amount of time in the mainland as a foreigner. The way that men talk about women, particularly in professional settings, is decades behind imho. KTV alone - I have heard some pretty terribls sounding stories there as well although have been lucky to only have gone to the normal ktv. A simple example is booth babes at tech shows. In the US, general consensus is that this is exploitive. In China it seems quite normative.

<comment><USER8> > In the US, general consensus is that this is exploitive. In China it seems > quite normative.

We're not that great about it in the US either. It's still an issue that people are having to fight, repeatedly. The US is definitely getting better, but it's far from solved.

<comment><USER9> I think the distinction that he's drawing is that in the US, the cultural consensus is that this behavior is not ok, even though it still goes on. There's this in-between space that we get to about things like this where we all (mostly) decide its not ok, but lots of people still do it and/or protect those that do. China seems to still be in the first stage though, of not having culturally come to agreement that this sort of thing isn't just normal and acceptable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not surprised! Check out this overtly sexist recruiting video by Alibaba:

[https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000005795093/chines...](https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000005795093/chinese- tech-companies-dirty-secret.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs- heading&module=vhs&region=title-area&cview=true&t=23)

<comment><USER11> Before clicking the link I was expecting some light sexism, I was not prepared for women employees opening bottles stuck between men's legs. Wow

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One thought that crossed my mind is the extent to which Xi's government can ride this wave and use it to eliminate political enemies. The old way was to accuse political enemies of corruption and have them jailed. I wonder if the new way is to get them accused of sex crimes, or just ruin their reputation in China so that they become radioactive to work with.

I think whether or not these posts are censored will tell you what's likely. If they are taken down quickly, it's probably not government instigated, but if they're not removed, then it leads to the suspicion that the government wants these published.

</comment><comment><USER13> That really cuts directly at the business cultural in China and China is very passionate about ridged reasoning and rebuking things they don't like as not being Chinese. MeToo in China goes for the jugular of these attitudes, good for them.

</comment><comment><USER14> It is a weird dynamic, from what I understand to China is pretty far behind (just needed a word here so I chose "behind") socially in that area. Sort of Me 2 meets mid 20th century attitudes in the US?

<comment><USER15> The US started mass employment of women in the late 1800s. It took until the 2010s for MeToo to be taken seriously. (And by seriously, I mean that there are consequences for such actions.)

Given that China actively destroyed its culture during '49-'79, and then saw the fastest growth spurt of industrialization and services ever seen in human history, it's not surprising that they're playing massive catchup.

The interesting thing would be to compare womens' working conditions in the PRC vs. the ROC, HK, and Singapore, Sinosphere countries of which none of which suffered similar political turmoil and had much less compressed development.

<comment><USER16> MeToo is far from the first time this stuff has had teeth in the US.

It's more that you get waves of action, back lash, then build up for the next wave. Really you can trace US legislation back to the 70's, but social progress is slow.

<comment><USER15> Legislation happened in the '70s, but I would characterize those earlier movements as countercultural.

MeToo, as far as I'm aware, is the first time where allegations against sexual harassment are with the prevailing winds of modern American culture, and when people other than politicians have suffered actual blowback and consequences from such behavior.

<comment><USER16> That's more perception than reality. Many powerful men and some women have been removed from upper management in industry or government due to sexual harassment. Add to that many very large monetary payouts resulting in policies and training for decades, the difference is before social media these things have been mostly kept quite.

Hollywood has also been something of a holdout as people hold power without being someone's supervisor.

<comment><USER15> The removal of CEOs and boards is a relatively new development; it would be hard, particularly for public companies, to hide such drastic actions, and for it to happen over sexual harassment and similar policies was certainly not very common over the years. Government is a bit of a different case, particularly in the case of elected officials where a lot of times it's more viewed in terms of what it means about the official's morality, and less about what the actual victim's allegations were.

A non-exhaustive list of changes in CEOs and boards and upper management in recent times: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635067](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635067)

<comment><USER16> If you compare 'Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson' to these cases the trend is much less extreme situations having significant repercussions. Which eventually hits more CEO's becase their simplicity are fewer CEO's of major organizations and thus fewer CEO's committing extreme over the top acts. Aka more cases of comments than inappropriate touching, more touching than grouping, and more grouping than rape.

However the impact of CEO's vs the 1000's of lower level managers is less in that they directly impact fewer people even if they have oversight over large organizations.

As to removal over time that's extremely sensitive when dealing with CEO's so the bar has been rather high. Still you can find cases 10+ years ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> no worries, our future will be sexless anyway. It takes time.

</comment><comment><USER18> Didn't women play a substantial role in the Cultural Revolution? Such as Jiang Qing and Nie Yuanzi?

<comment><USER19> What's that got to do with modern workplace sexual harassment.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure.

But maybe it has something to do with the evolution of gender equality in China? That is, maybe reaction against the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards has reinforced male dominance?

Baggage aside, the current Chinese government seems more Confucian than Communist.

<comment><USER3> Isn't it better to see it from the perspective of 'people in power can be sinful', rather than 'because there were some female leaders early on in a (highly propagandistic) movement then they most be on the side of women? Even still, there are many women who harbor men with bad behavior for personal gain.

<comment><USER15> Of course it's better, but how often does human behavior act in better or more logical ways? Humans are not the rational, well-informed beings of economics.

<comment><USER3> Not sure how this relates to my comment..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm sure the crowd control mechanism (social credit system) can be utilized in some way here no?

<comment><USER15> The government is actively censoring such posts, so no.

<comment><USER20> Forgot the /s Chances are that it will rather be utilized against the women...</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Super Share Box breaks Social Network Lock-In - <AUTHOR> http://devesh.github.io/SuperShareBox/

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. "Breaks" is perhaps too strong a word, but that is the eventual goal of this little experiment. I'm open to suggestions for how to get to that to that goal (and pull requests are appreciated).

I'll come back around lunch time to answer any questions.</comment>


This Multi-Million SaaS Needs Disrupting - <AUTHOR>

Trying to sign up my kids to play soccer today and came across just about the worst designed piece of software I've ever encountered.  The sad thing is, they make many millions of dollars a year by managing soccer leagues, the registration, scheduling, etc.  They don't deserve to make $1 given their software!
Here's the site:  http://www.gotsport.com
Here's the steps I took today to (try to) sign up my kids:
1.  Click on the link in the email that gets auto-sent.  Since I'm a coach, it takes me to my team's home page.  NOWHERE on this page is there a link to register.
- Go to the league home page and click on the "Register" link.  Go to the login page.  See 4 DIFFERENT PLACES TO LOGIN!  One's for family, one's for coach, one's for player, one's for manager.  Since I've done this mess before, I know I have to choose Family.
- Forgot my family password.  Press "Forgot Password".  They send me an email with a link. I click on the link.  The link has a button that says "Send New Password".  They send me an email with a new password.  I finally log in as a Family.
- I see my 2 kids listed under our Family.  I press the "Register Now" button by my son.  I now have to enter my son's username and password.  I don't know his password.  I start the whole 2-email-process to get his password set up again.
- I get my son's password, click their link to log in again, and it takes me to his account home page.  NOWHERE ON THIS PAGE is there a link to sign him up for the new season.
- I go BACK to the league home page and click on the link to "Register".  Now I log in as my son.  I see his account information with registration information.  I click "Pay By Credit Card".  The link times out.
No registered kids, 20 minutes wasted.
Please somebody tell me they are working on a replacement for this! <comment><USER2> Wow. Just looking at the site gives me a 2003 headache. There's no clear indication of what you can do or where to go. It's just aching for a redesign at the very least.</comment>


Scientists Petition U.S. Congress for Return to the Moon - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-petition-u-congress-return-moon-191838421.html

<comment><USER2> Definitely scientists have an opinion far from unanimous, as Stephen Hawking finds the idea "Stupid. Robots would do a better job and be much cheaper because you don't have to bring them back."

[http://www.todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen-Q...](http://www.todayinsci.com/H/Hawking_Stephen/HawkingStephen- Quotations.htm)

<comment><USER3> If you look at the justification it is totally circular -- "we need to send people to the moon to learn how to send people to Mars".

Much much more science can be done for the same price if you omit the humans. The commercial viability threshold is much much lower if you omit the humans. The one and only reason to send humans up to space in the foreseeable future is patriotic chest thumping. Well that and to stroke the adolescent fantasies of those who grew up on science fiction.

<comment><USER4> Think of a manned Moon mission as more of a propaganda piece for the Mars- exploration party.

The Moon is days of travel time, whereas Mars is months of travel time. Round- trip communication delay to the Moon is seconds. Delay to Mars is minutes. Pieces of the Moon can be returned as souvenirs. Delta-v for returning bits of Mars is ridiculous. People can SEE the Moon with the naked eye, even in urban light pollution. Mars requires a map of the sky and a pair of binoculars, at least.

The Moon is important because it motivates the nonscientific people of Earth to support more productive forms of space exploration research. It reminds people that this is not only a very small world, but the only one we have. And it creates a seed economy with a shorter possible cycle of iterations than a few missions clustered around the same 3-month launch window every 780 days. There is some merit to having regular shorter missions to a closer target, so that when that window comes around, you have people with steady jobs and experience around to run the longer missions.

It isn't just about the scientific benefit. You also have to consider the human factors. Nobody wants to train for years to be unemployed 90% of the time, waiting around for the next time someone needs some specific skill. The thing about Moon missions is that they can be done with resources that would otherwise be mothballed and rusting, or used once and discarded.

<comment><USER3> You're engaging in the same question begging as the scientists in the linked piece. If we accept for the sake of argument that manned moon missions further the cause of manned Mars missions, that still leaves us without a justification for manned Mars missions.

Manned Mars missions aren't any more "productive" than manned Moon missions. Both are terribly inefficient from any scientific or commercial perspective.

<comment><USER4> There is no commercial perspective that does not include humans somewhere. The economy IS humans. Manned missions to other planets are exciting. Robot missions to anywhere are slightly more emotionally engaging than watching your Roomba sweep your kitchen floor.

Star Trek succeeded as a television show because it had human actors telling a story, to the point that this fiction is more popular as an entertainment franchise than actual space exploration? Why? Actual space exploration has only produced a handful of biplanetary pedestrians, and only John Glenn has made any kind of a big deal about it.

In my view, the end goal of space exploration is to transplant Earth-origin life to other planets--not just humans, but (at minimum) thousands of species. That goal is not served by ignoring the transporting-the-biologicals portion of space exploration. That means I am completely unwilling to fund with my dollars any scheme that allows other people to fritter away money on pure science that will never become applied science, specifically science applied to my personal lifestyle. Multiply me by the six billion people who will likewise never escape our gravity well, and you had darned well better start thinking about the politics and the economics along with the science.

In short, I don't give a fig about whether it would make the boffins happier to do something else. Humans in space is what I am willing to pay for. If they don't want to play along with my non-optimal prejudices, I'd prefer that they be cut off from tax-derived funds entirely, and go with exclusively private funding. Ask for public money; act in the public's interest. The public is interested in seeing people in space.

It IS stupid, and doesn't make sense. What else would make it a uniquely human endeavor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a scientist (although not currently living in the US) and I definitely think we (the US in particular and humanity in general) should go back to the Moon and eventually Mars.

Yes, we can (probably) do more science and for cheaper with robots. Yes, we can (probably) develop the same technologies we would other wise by focusing just on automated exploration but there is one very important thing only human exploration can do:

 __ _Inspire generations of future scientists_ __

Never underestimate the power of seeing someone personally going where no one has ever gone before or doing something that has never been done before. Thousands of people cross the straight between England and France everyday, but when someone swims across it makes the news. Thousands of people skydive everyday, but when Felix Baumgartner jumped from higher and faster than anybody before it made the news. How many of the older generation of scientists and engineers chose (at least initially) that carrer path because they grew up watching Neil Armstrong bounce around on the Moon? Or watching the now defunct Space Shuttle take people to the edge of space and dreamt of doing the same? A big project similar to the space race could make science and engineering sexy again, and would have one other advantage that only giant projects with clearly defined goals have:

 __ _It focuses research in one direction, speeding up technological evolution_ __

The reason why a bunch of nerds in the middle of the New Mexico desert were able to build an atom bomb in practically record time was because everyone had a clear idea of what the goal was and it was immediately clear when progress was being made towards it and when it was achieved. The same thing applies to the Space Race. When Kennedy first said "we choose to go the moon in this decade" it was far from clear that it would even be possible. But it gave everyone a clear and inspiring goal to strive for. "We choose to send a bunch of circuits to the moon" wouldn't have nearly the same effect. This is the reason we now talk of "moonshot projects" (and google has a whole division for them). They are almost impossible but the goal is sufficiently clear and inspiring to make people work hard until they are accomplished.

Imagine what would be possible if Obama were to say "we choose to go to Mars before the end of the decade" and actually provided NASA and private contractors with the funds to do it? What technologies wouldn't be developed and commercialized that we haven't even dreamt of?

<comment><USER6> Suppose we set a goal to build a dirigible the size of a small town that could float up in the air and people could live on it and it would have an expected lifespan of at least 30 years? It would be enormously expensive and I have little doubt that some new technologies would have to be pioneered to produce something so audacious. But at the end of the day, it's still reasonable to ask why that's a goal we should spend so much to achieve, and the fact that we would invent a bunch of cool technology along the way seems insufficient as a response. There are lots and lots of things that we could spend tons of money on that would produce a bunch of spin-off technology -- how would we decide which of these things we should dump truckloads of money into, and which ones we shouldn't?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Robert Zubrin has spent a large chunk of his career[1] arguing that going to the Moon is absolutely worthless. Go to Mars instead, it's not orders of magnitude harder. Why the Moon? There is nothing of value. Some ice embedded in rock, extremely diluted He-3. Really, it's just useful as a megascale solar panel.

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg) is a good summary.

</comment><comment><USER8> Neither party particularly likes funding NASA (save if they have them in their home district). The Dems prefer to expand social spending over government R&D. The Repubs thinks government funded R&D is a deficit-rasiing frill. Thats whty they both were quick to shut down the shuttle program.

<comment><USER9> It'll be interesting to see if and how those positions will change once other countries like China and India make major advances in space technologies and discoveries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is going to end up being a race to build the first helium-3 reactor on the moon, I just know it. After that happens - wow! We may well just enter the new Space Era after all.

Trouble is, its also highly likely that it'll be the Chinese leading the way. If they didn't have such a violent history of human rights abuses as a nation, I'd be a little less concerned, but as it stands right now I can't see Chinese domination of space-based industry being a good thing.

Then again, it might just solve the pollution problem if we can just push China up into space, and use clean technologies for deliveries back to us here on Earth. Here's hoping it happens within the next 50 years, anyway!

<comment><USER11> About 1 in 10,000th of earth bound helum is H3 which makes it several orders of magnitude cheaper to extract on earth than on the moon.

PS: For scale the US reserve was over 1 billion kg of helium last I checked which works out to something like 100,000+kg of H3. At 20% effecency it takes ~260kg of H3 to run a 1GW power plant for 1 year. So, we might want to start mining H3 on the moon, but after getting 10+ H3 reactors running for 20+ years which is going to take a long time. However, I suspect where going to ignore designing H3 reactors for similar reasons as we are ignoring thorium basically the fuel is no the expensive part of nuclear reactors.

<comment><USER10> Send robot to moon.

Robot #1: locate he-3!

he-3 robot finds he-3 on moon!

Send 2 more robots to moon.

Robot #2: build he-3 reactor!

reactor robot starts to build reactor ..

Robot #3: build little factory for making: robots!

robot-building robot builds robot-building factory ..

reactor robot is finished! Just Plug In!

robot-building robot is finished! Plugged In!

ROBOTS in SPACE!!

(Edit: to answer this - "the fuel is not the expensive part of nuclear reactors", yes the most expensive part of all this is doing it on Earth.)

<comment><USER12> If it was this easy, there should already be robots building He-3 reactors on the moon. No, not from Earth. From other civilizations that built van Neumann drones millions or billions of years ago!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Seems a bit 20th century to ask Congress for money to do it, when people like Elon Musk have shown you can do pretty much anything NASA can do privately at a 10th of the cost.

<comment><USER14> Anything? Really? So Musk built a space station, landed men on the moon, and launched a massive space telescope? He's landed robotic rovers all over the surface of Mars? He hasn't even put a human being in orbit yet.

<comment><USER13> No, he hasn't done all those things. That's kind of the point here: this is about going back to the moon i.e. doing things that have already been done. The point now is to do them in such a way that you can generate wealth while doing it. So, when private companies go to the moon, they will do it better, at a fraction of the cost, and generate wealth while doing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Been there, done that.

It might be worthwhile to use Earth-to-Moon travel as a benchmark -- such as we used "crossing the Atlantic" or "New York to LA". Otherwise, what's the use?

1) I suppose we could build factories to make stuff too dangerous or difficult to make on Earth. But LEO would probably work just as well more cheaply. 2) Build a "Super Guantanamo" where "life without parole" has some real teeth.

We might find LEO, Sealabs, and near-Earth asteroids more useful. Going to Mars would be more difficult and more imaginative.

<comment><USER16> So once Lindberg crossed the atlantic, that was it? Been there, done that, no need to ever make a nonstop flight across the atlantic again?</comment></comment>


Rosetta catches dusty organics - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2016/09/07/rosetta-catches-dusty-organics/ <comment><AUTHOR> Just a few days left for Rosetta, you might want to mark the date in your calendar:

      On September 29, a rocket burn will essentially cancel out
      Rosetta's orbital motion around the comet, initiating a
      free fall from an altitude of 20 kilometers. The spacecraft
      will impact the comet at a speed of about 90 centimeters
      per second at 04:20 PDT / 07:20 EDT / 11:20 UTC / 13:20
      CEST, give or take 20 minutes.

[http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily- lakdawalla/2016/0909102...](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily- lakdawalla/2016/09091029-rosetta-end-of-mission-update.html)

(The rocket burn is on the 29th, the impact on the 30th, of course.)

<comment><USER2> Is it possible the impact will affect trajectory of the comet?

<comment><USER3> No, Rosetta is already in orbit around the comet. By the principle of conservation of momentum the impact will not change the total momentum of the system (comet plus spacecraft).

The changes in trajectory happens when the engines are used on the spacecraft.

<comment><USER4> Would this still hold true if Rosetta were commanded to slam into the comet hard enough for some of the impact debris to reach escape velocity? (Not trying to nitpick your argument, it certainly holds true for the soft landing case, but I'm curious how strong this axiom is)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone comment on how significant this discovery is? Are we talking unprecedented or has this been hypothesized for a while? Are the conditions on such comets more conducive for organic molecule formation than the surface of a planet or large moon might be?

<comment><USER6> According to the article, they were expecting it:

 _From analyses of meteorites and laboratory simulations, the team was also expecting to identify a wide diversity of organic material in Comet 67P /C-G, ranging from very small molecules to heavy (or 'high molecular weight') organics._

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Organic = [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound)

<comment><USER6> I doubt anyone would expect to find organically grown veggies on a comet. Not sure what you're trying to say. Isn't it pretty clear that they're referring to molecules containing carbon?

<comment><USER8> There was a related discussion recently where "organic" in an article was referring to life-forms. So it's good to clarify which organic is being discussed.

Of course, if they found microbes on a comet this would be a much bigger announcement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Genuine question: How do we know the organic compounds seen by Rosetta do not come from Earth and were not brought by Rosetta itself?

<comment><USER10> Usually spacecrafts like that are built in clean rooms and care is taken so they are sterilized when sent to space. I have no specific answer, though.

<comment><USER11> This will be _especially_ true for instruments that are designed to find such compounds. It would be fairly embarrassing to send the probe into space, only to notice that apparently interplanetary space is full of organic compounds no one else has ever seen ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "These particles have remained pristine and untouched for billions of years until they were released in the days or weeks before being 'caught' by COSIMA,"

I hope they will release the particles back into the wild once they are done with their analysis.

<comment><USER13> I'm not against releasing the particle...but any specific reason you hope they release them once back into the wild after?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone could explain briefly what is the "stretch" theory or hypothesis that is mentioned in the heated comments section to the blog post?

<comment><USER15> I can't - and hell, I barely understand anything they say - but the style reminds me of how Asimov would picture an academic dialogue between two rivals.</comment></comment>


U.S. lawmakers want to restrict internet surveillance on Americans - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-surveillance/u-s-lawmakers-want-to-restrict-internet-surveillance-on-americans-idUSKBN1C92T5 <comment><USER2> The average surveillance reform article irks me. Most if not all tend to miss the fact that privacy protections take effect _when the data is accessed_. NSA has intentionally toyed with the definition of the word _collect_ to mean _access_ to data that has already been intercepted and stored.[0]

In other words: every U.S. citizen's private domestic communications have been rotting in Bluffdale, Utah for the past five years—and likely will remain there indefinitely along with all future communications. If rogue actors (insiders or otherwise) are able to get side-channel access, the fact privacy protections exist will mean precisely nothing.

The best thing for domestic surveillance reform—short of every elected official suddenly having the entirety of their intercepted digital communications leaked—would be for the Trump administration to wantonly abuse the NSA's domestic capability in a completely untactful manner, and getting caught red-handed doing it.

The last Bush administration abused the hell out of it, but they were at least somewhat careful in doing so.[1]

[0] [https://www.eff.org/nsa- spying/wordgames#collect](https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/wordgames#collect)

[1] [http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp- content/uploads/BF.0112.T...](http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/wp- content/uploads/BF.0112.Tice_20130617.mp3) (Skip to 00:48:26)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have observed an astonishing correlation between leaks of information about the Whitehouse and officials associated with Internet Surveillance, and a bipartisan interest in curbing the various agencies responsible for collecting that information.

<comment><USER4> Oh come on that's not astonishing at all. Nothing ever changes until it hits the lawmakers personally, that's why we don't do jack about poverty and why people in those positions get up on podiums and tell us $1,000 more gets every family a new car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ubiquitous surveillance is inevitable. The prices of sensors, computing and storage keep dropping, the number of sensors is exploding and people are becoming less sensitive about their privacy.

The real question is if the it will be only the powerful surveilling the private lives of the masses, or if the surveillance is more bidirectional.

<comment><USER6> I can answer that question for you: surveillance will follow the same distribution curve as capital.

<comment><USER7> Its already happening.

The poor can't afford a more privacy oriented phone like an iPhone, hence end up in the Google ecosphere.

The poor can't afford a new phone every 2 years, not even a budget device of a "mere" 200 USD. Hence, their devices aren't patched.

The poor can barely afford their bills as it is.

<comment><USER8> > a more privacy oriented phone like an iPhone

How is a phone with _no user filesystem_ more privacy-oriented?

<comment><USER7> That is not the only variable...

Apple does far less tracking than Google. That's not their primary business model, and its part of the Apple tax.

Unless you run a rooted device (with the attached risks) plus Android without GApps. You'd end up running all kind of out-of-date software from F-Droid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seemed like the law enabling them to capture the data is expiring and they are adding in some controls about how an agency can access the collected data. Doesn't seem like mass surveillance is curbed in any way really. If anything it seemed like they are intent to continue surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER10> Why its hard to believe that ? Look what obama did ?? Not even hacker news was mentioned about it.</comment>


Ask HN: Should a developer wait for Apple Silicon or stick with Intel? - <AUTHOR> I am a full stack developer who is planning on getting into iOS development, should I wait for Apple Silicon or stick with Intel.
Is there adequate support for ARM architecture in the current software ecosystem. Does all programming languages and it's associated packages work in ARM.
Is there any gotchas that developers specifically will face with switching to Apple Silicon ? <comment><USER2> It's worth seeing what comes out in October and deciding then. If you're planning to work entirely in the apple ecosystem and they come out with a developer focused machine then it might make sense but I'm skeptical of the new arm macs being "pro" models. It's also often better to go in on apple's 2nd or 3rd iteration of a new product. You mention doing web development and I think if you want to continue that it will be easier to stick with intel for the next 2-4 years.</comment>


Ask HN: Which quote had the biggest impact on your life? - <AUTHOR> I think for me it's : "Focus on the journey, not the destination". Because I thought for a while that when X will be done, my life will be much better, I will be more happy. But the thing is like many people X never happen...
So now I'm focusing on what should I do everyday to be more happy. <comment><USER2> "Many, many men have been just as troubled morally and spiritually as you are right now. Happily, some of them kept records of their troubles. You'll learn from them - if you want to. Just as someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you. It's a beautiful reciprocal arrangement. And it isn't education. It's history. It's poetry." \- The Catcher In The Rye

<comment><AUTHOR> I really need to read this book. It has been several time already i've seen quotes from this book

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Karmanye vaadikaaraste ma phaleshu kadaa chana"

Sanskrit quote from the Gita, meaning: "Do the right thing, do not worry about results, the fruits / success will come eventually."

</comment><comment><USER4> If you keep doing what you're doing you'll keep getting what you're getting.

As a dev, I obviously made an acronym for it: ykdykg

<comment><AUTHOR> I loved this one as well.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> And this one : "Most people use excuses. Don't be most people"

</comment><comment><USER5> You miss a 100% of the shots you don't take.</comment>


Restricted Shells: Sometimes Persuasive but Usually Fallacious - <AUTHOR> https://gravitational.com/blog/ssh-restricted-shells/ <comment><USER2> The article claims that things like Bash's restricted mode are ineffective. It gives the example:

        parent$ bash --restricted
        child$ cd ..
        bash: cd: restricted
        child$ pwd
        /home/rjones
        child$ bash
        grandchild$ cd ..
        grandchild$ pwd
        /home

where the escape is that 'child' was able to create the non-restricted shell 'grandchild'. If you think that properly configuring a restricted bash shell is a simple as executing `/bin/bash --restricted`, then you need to read the manual. The restricted shell can execute arbitrary programs _in $PATH_ ; to deploy a restricted Bash shell, you'll need to construct a PATH with whitelisted programs that it is safe to execute. The restricted Bash cannot adjust PATH, and it cannot execute programs outside of PATH.

Something like:

         $ PATH=/etc/restricted-bin bash --restricted

where /etc/restricted-bin contains symlinks to or stub-wrappers for programs that the restricted shell should be able to use.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I did not provide the best example, but the point I was driving at is that the restrictions here are at the application level and not at the system level.

If you take the approach you are taking, similar to ForceCommand, you have to make sure none of the commands in your PATH allow code execution. For example git, vim, less, awk, and find, all of which I use on a daily basis, can all be used to re-launch a restriction free bash.

Once you remove all the commands you have to, how much of a shell do you have left?

<comment><USER2> _> but point I was driving at is the restrictions here at the application level and not at the system level._

Your point is well-taken!

I'm obviously not privy the the conversations you've had with potential customers, so I'm not entirely sure what they're asking for. But (IMO) the way to think of a restricted shell is to think of it as a shell that can't do anything, except for a small list of narrowly defined tasks. Thinking of it as a normal full shell, with "unsafe" things disabled, that's a losing game, as you note.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Restricted shell escapes are a common topic in CTFs and they can be a very interesting test of one's knowledge of shell and Unix details. It's not clear to me whether people who commonly construct these challenges think that a restricted shell can actually be safe or not.

(It's clear that to _attempt_ to have a safe restricted shell, you have to, among other things, whitelist rather than blacklist executable programs, studying each one individually to learn whether it allows arbitrary code execution or not.)

<comment><USER5> It also doesn't help that when some people say restricted shell they mean "actually like bash, running on a real system", or more of a debugging console (a bespoke REPL a la Python's stdlib's cmd module). I'd happily believe you can secure something like the latter, and I don't think it's worth the expense of securing the former.

(But also, if you give people an anodyne shell like that, what's the point? If all you can do is peek and poke at metrics then maybe you just wanted better instrumentation?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the article:

> Another form of system hardening you can use is containers.

Let's not forget the 8k+ vulns on the top ten docker images, and the general security implications of containers.

Like, let me run my data export from inside the publicly downloaded container that connects to the database and hasn't been locked down, because who actually audits and hardens their containers or manually configures their docker runtime?

<comment><USER5> Where does the post tell you to do that? If anything it tells you a) spend a lot of time paying attention to what sounds like what you might call "the general security implications of containers" and b) it also tells you that systems like K8s mean that you may not need to run said container to your prod database.

Saying that one of the senior engineers at Gravitational "is unaware of the general security implications of containers" is a pretty bold claim.

<comment><USER6> Under alternatives, Containers and Schedulers, 3rd section from the end

<comment><USER5> There's no "Containers and orchestration" section, but there's a "Containers and Schedulers" which is what I assume you meant. Here's the full text of that section:

\----

 _Once you have a containerized application, you can use a container scheduler like Kubernetes or Docker Swarm to run it on your production hosts. Container schedulers provide a well defined API to access the status of the container like its state and logs. This means users only have access to the running programs over a well defined API._

 _Because containers are self-contained images with everything they need to run, developers do not need access to production hosts to debug issues. For example, a good workflow allows developers to spin up a cluster locally on dummy data they control. However within production they would only have access to logs. This way data exfiltration is prevented because direct access to data is simply not allowed._

\----

I read that as saying "no, don't run random containers to attach to prod, instead rely on orchestration to get you logs and instrumentation". Or is the entirety of your argument "containers are bad because images are full of vulns"?

<comment><USER6> I'm not saying containers are bad, I use them everywhere. They require the same audit and lockdown that the host system needs. If the container accesses data, and the container has vulns, then we still have to deal with situation 1, malicious actors.

From the article:

> Another form of system hardening you can use is containers.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Be thankful for turkey cooking patents - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/11/23/be-thankful-for-turkey-cooking.html

<comment><USER2> Usually it is techdirt that is aggregator/hype spam, but in this case it is boing boing aggregation of a good techdirt article. Actual source is [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23451821121/so- lon...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23451821121/so-long-thanks- all-turkey-patents.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER3> Be glad that patents have inspired Russ Parsons to improve the way we make turkeys. What, he never filed for a patent on his improvements? Whodathunkit?

For those who have no clue what I'm talking about, see [http://www.food52.com/blog/2713_russ_parsons_drybrined_turke...](http://www.food52.com/blog/2713_russ_parsons_drybrined_turkey_aka_the_judy_bird) for some history on drybrining Thanksgiving turkey. (The technique has only been used on turkeys since 2006, so the history is mostly recent, even though dry brining is older.)

If you don't know what that is, for your next turkey you cook I highly recommend mixing 1 tablespoon of salt for every 5 pounds of turkey with whatever spices you'd like to taste in your turkey, sprinkle it over the turkey, put it in a plastic bag, and leave it in the fridge for several days before cooking normally. (You may have to search a little to find a turkey that has not already been brined, but you really want that because otherwise the salt balance is wrong and you don't get YOUR herbs in it.)

You will get a much better turkey. And no, it is not patented. True innovation and patents are orthogonal.

<comment><USER4> > The technique has only been used on turkeys since 2006

Saying that putting salt on a turkey a couple days ahead has "only been used on turkeys since 2006" is made up, and it's stupid.

Which surprises me, because you're smart.

<comment><USER3> Don't believe me? Find me cookbooks from before 2006 suggesting dry brining turkeys. (There are lots that recommend wet brining, which is much more work and results in meat that is about the same, and a much worse skin.)

Russ Parsons has been publishing in a nationally read newspaper on this subject for several years. He's had a lot of letters back with people suggesting various tricks to make it better. (One of those is where he got the idea of trying to add spices to that salt.) As far as I know he has not received one response to the tune of, "I've known about this for ages, see X." To the contrary I've seen a number of food experts comment positively on this as a new twist to the holiday turkey.

That is why I have come to the belief that this really is an innovation. But I'd be happy to be corrected.

<comment><USER4> > Don't believe me

No, and I'm not going to go looking through home cooking cookbooks to try to prove something to you, either. That's not where cooking innovation happens.

<comment><USER3> So you don't believe me, have no references to cite, and are unwilling to back up your disbelief.

In the meantime I'll look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Parsons>, conclude that he's a pretty good authority on food, and conclude that, _even if_ someone else was out there dry brining turkeys before him, it was certainly innovative for him to try it.

And he's certainly done more to popularize the idea than everyone before him, combined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like the turkey is the computer of the 60s

</comment><comment><USER6> I am definitely guilty of patent infringement...</comment>