Tesla responds to "bricking" issue - <AUTHOR> http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/plug-it <comment><USER2> This is PR mastery.

Nowhere in the release does Tesla refute that owners have "bricked" their batteries. Nowhere in the release do they say that the battery can not be bricked by leaving it for a long period without a recharge. All they say is that it would take a period of weeks for a Tesla roadster to reach 0% charge, and that the Model S has battery disconnect technology that can extend this to several months. They also point out that the car will provide increasingly strenuous warnings to plug it in (which, no matter how loud they are, would be hard to hear from across the country, if you've left it in an airport parking lot).

If it were true that a Tesla battery pack couldn't be destroyed by letting it fully discharge, or that it had never happened, then they would have mentioned it in the release. In fact, they take the opposite tack, re-emphasizing near the top of the document that users should always plug the car in when parked.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very enamored by Teslas, and I don't think that this is any different than the owner of a gas-powered car letting it run out of oil and seizing the engine -- it's neglect. If you don't get it by now, Tesla owners, you need to plug in your cars.

<comment><USER3> It's really no different than early fuel-injected cars being damaged by running out of gas. The solution? _Don't run out of fucking gas._ That didn't stop fuel injection from becoming the dominant technology, and neither will this halt the rise of EVs.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like you knew all along that the Tesla battery could be bricked by running out of charge? That would make you one of a very small minority.

The original story got play because it was a surprising, unknown, and frankly, sucks.

If all of my fuel-injected laptops had never been damaged when they ran out of fuel, I would be pretty shocked and disappointed when it was a problem with the Kugelfischer. Much like the Tesla owners this affected.

Tesla isn't a "cause" it's just a product. So whatever happens to Tesla one way or the other has a smaller influence on "the rise of EVs" than you can imagine. Mahalo.

<comment><USER3> >Sounds like you knew all along that the Tesla battery could be bricked by running out of charge? That would make you one of a very small minority.

Comprising all Tesla owners. It's in the Owner's Manual, and I would be very surprised if new owners aren't informed of it when they purchase the car.

<comment><USER5> It's good to know that you agree with the blogger who wrote the article, and agree that Tesla is lying when they say his claims are unfounded rumors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Deposition line of questioning suggested after reading this piece:

Q. Is it true that the battery has catastrophic failure when it drains to zero and is left in that state for a sustained period?

A. The company has built in countless safeguards to ensure that the battery never drains to zero.

Q. That is not what I asked. Please answer the question.

A. It is an unfounded rumor that many owners have incurred such a catastrophic failure and only an irrational fear would permit anyone to believe that.

Q. I didn't ask about many owners, only whether it is possible to incur a catastrophic failure as described. Please answer the question.

A. Our documentation clearly tells owners that it is vital to keep their car plugged in and we give them ever-escalating warnings to ensure that no rational person could ever let the car get close to that state.

Q. I didn't ask about the likelihood of this happening, only whether it can happen. Please answer the question.

A. We value our customers more than you can imagine and it is slanderous to suggest that we would subject them to risks that can be avoided.

Q. Again, not what I asked, please answer the question.

A. Every car has risks of catastrophic failure if it is badly misused.

Q. Does this mean the Tesla does too with its engine?

A. We will not dignify a mere rumor with an answer to that question.

Q. And is it true that it costs $40K to replace the battery?

A. I object to that as irrelevant.

Q. And that it is not covered under warranty?

A. Ditto - irrelevant.

Q. And constitutes an uninsurable risk?

A. We really are off track here. I will not answer.

Q. So you do not regard it as worthy of disclosure to your buyers that, should their battery drain to zero for any sustained period, the only remedy is to replace it at their own expense at a $40K cost.

A. That disclosure would not fit with our marketing plans. Plus we say something of the sort at page 487 of our owner's manual.

Q.Well I guess this was all pretty pointless.

A. Of course, nothing wrong here. Ignore the man behind the curtain. What a stupid thing to ask about anyway. The revolution is apace and you shouldn't bother me with little details.

<comment><USER7> Answer to your first question: No. The battery is fine, the stupidity in understanding that Li-ion batteries must never be fully discharged is the only catastrophic failure here.

Why can't I down vote your post? :(

PS: Don't buy any RC model (or diesel engines!), they all suffer from the same "catastrophic failure".

<comment><USER8> What about diesel engines? I have a diesel, have run out of fuel (clogged filer), have had air in the system - bled it out, was dangerously low on radiator fluid but no ill effects.

All that over the span of ten years and I still drive it actually the engine is the best part the rest of the truck is falling apart around the engine.

Add to those no spark plugs, no spark plug wires, no distributor, a more durable engine design, higher efficiency compared to a gasoline engine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's one of the problems that I have with this whole thing:

My iPod goes dead all the time, so does my phone, so does my laptop, my camera, my remote, my everything.

I think that every single battery-powered device I've ever owned has, at some point, gone "dead" (as in it won't power on).

 __NONE __of these things have ever been completely incapacitated because of this. I've never had to replace my laptop because I let it go flat.

I'm sure some of the 5 owners who have had this happened knew that the car would go dead, but I'm sure that _all_ of them figured that that just meant that they would have to charge it.

Tesla: here is how to fix this, and I'm asking that you do this on behalf of _all_ electronic vehicle manufacturers (to keep people from being scared off the things by blogs like this).

Release a statement that follows the standard 3-step press release of oops:

\---

1) "Own it". -- We fucked up here. This was our bad. We were stupid to believe that the general public would understand that letting the battery on their car go dead would cost them $40,000. This was incredibly stupid of us, and is 100% our fault. We take responsibility for this.

2) "How we're fixing it" -- The 5 people who have had this happen have all been contacted by Tesla motors. We're shipping a tech and a battery to all of them, and all of their cars will be back on the road by next week.

3) "Why this won't happen again" -- From now on, we're including a physical battery disconnect. A device will attach to the battery terminals that is normally off, and requires that the battery be at 5%[1] charge to close. If the battery drops below this, it _physically_ disconnects the battery from the rest of the system, and doesn't allow for any parasitic electronics to drain it further.

[1]: 5% is a made up number.

\---

Of course this won't happen, but a PR-spectator can dream.

Tesla: you bungled this one. Badly. You're hurting the entire EV industry. Suck it up and admit you were wrong.

<comment><USER10> I mentioned this yesterday [1], but I am repeating it here, because I believe that it is a critical piece of the conversation.

The consequences of failing to maintain the battery are _clearly_ stated by Tesla Motors in the owner's manual.

Is it the fault of Tesla Motors that an owner did not read, understand and follow the maintenance procedures outlined in the owner's manual? Is it not the buyer's responsibility to perform due-diligence in this regard?

From the Roadster 2/Roadster Sport owner's manual (italic emphasis is mine):

"Important! Caution: If the battery's charge level falls to 0%, it must be plugged in immediately. _Failure to do so can permanently damage the battery and this damage is not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty._ Also, if you allow the battery to fall to a critically low level _it may not be possible to charge the vehicle._ If you are unable to charge the vehicle, contact Tesla Motors."

[...]

"However, situations may arise in which you must leave the vehicle unplugged for an extended time (for example, at an airport when traveling for a couple of weeks). If this is the case, _it is your responsibility to ensure that the battery does not become fully depleted._ "

[...]

"If for some reason, you are unable to keep the vehicle plugged in when it is not being used, _it is up to you to preserve battery life_ by paying attention to the charge level and the temperature [...]"

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3625527>

<comment><USER11> You can put whatever you'd like into the warning. The fact of the matter is that this is a car. When a car runs out of gas, it's not forever bricked. People will, due to a hundred years of experience, expect the same from a new car that has a different power source.

They can fix this. They have the technology.

<comment><USER12> What kind of technology is going to keep a battery magically charged if left alone? Self-discharge is a built-in phenomenon of these batteries. The fix they have is that the car can "phone home", and that's what Tesla and other car manufacturers are doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Am I the only one face palming from reading "Here is why the rumor is unfounded" followed by the first two paragraphs confirming exactly what the blog stated? That batteries must be kept charged, and that if they get too low will contact Tesla HQ?

<comment><USER14> The rumour is unfounded because you have to try really hard to get to that state. You can leave your car in storage or at the airport for weeks as long as it has enough charge to hold, and even if you get to 0% charge you still have 30 days to plug it in before all is lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> TL;DR; A single blogger is spreading a rumor about electric vehicles becoming inoperable. We'd like to confirm the rumour.

Seriously, I find it breathtaking, for all the reasons people have already given. It's a case study in saying "yes" while giving the impression of saying "no".

</comment><comment><USER16> Why is this thread so filled with hate? This all sounds very reasonable to me. They clearly acknowledge that the battery must be maintained properly and they seem to be doing to the right things to minimize the risk. They then show very clearly that the total amount of maintenance is less than that of a gasoline vehicle, w/ oil and scheduled maintenance. There are a bunch of things like breaking your timing belt that will break a gasoline engine. This all sounds very reasonable to me. Why is everyone freaking out?

<comment><USER17> A surprising number of people, even within the technology field, don't like change that disrupts their personal habits. Hence the constant low-intensity warfare over the various Linux distros and interfaces.

In this case a lot of folks are getting emotionally involved because this story serves as proof that electric cars can't be maintained with the exact same habits that an ICE car is maintained. Habits are a personal things, and can be difficult to change. A lot of people will fight to preserve them rather than adapt them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is the weakest "anti-rumor" corporate response ever. After all that lengthy passive-aggressive "We're great, but you need to charge your battery", there's not a single statement about what would happen if the battery runs out, which is precisely what the original article is about.

Tesla, stop beating around the bush like a politician, grow up and answer the million-dollar question like a man:

What will happen once the car's battery is completely depleted?

(life-line hint: it will get bricked)

</comment><comment><USER19> Here's something I'm still unclear on: how strongly were owners warned about this beforehand?

If Tesla cars come with a bright red warning on the driver's side window saying IF YOU DO NOT KEEP THIS CAR CHARGED THEN YOU RUN THE RISK OF REPAIRS COSTING UP TO $40,000 then I'd say Tesla is completely in the right here.

If they didn't mention this anywhere and it's just something owners discover because they use it in a way that Tesla didn't think they should, then Tesla is completely in the wrong.

If they did something in between, then it's in between. I may have missed it, but so far I haven't seen this explained.

<comment><USER20> These (apparent) e-mails between an owner with the dead battery issue and Tesla seem to indicate that there _is_ a a 'built-in notification system' for this, but it wasn't added for the first 500 cars : <http://jalopnik.com/5887504/tesla-emails-gallery/gallery/1>

<comment><USER19> A problem like this really needs advance warning, not just a notification when the problem is about to develop, since the owner may not be in a position to get the car plugged in if they don't know it could occur beforehand.

<comment><USER21> Which is why there are warnings in the manuals. Which puts it on par with changing the oil in a regular car, if less culturally-obvious. Reading a manual for something you spent $100k on seems a reasonable prerequisite, especially if you have any interest in keeping it running.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> No technology or system is perfect, there is a certain level of "acceptable use" that we always need to comply with. I don't think charging a Tesla is that big of an issue, and if you're fortunate enough to own one, you're probably also intelligent enough to plan ahead.

In Australia (where I'm originally from) LPG (Propane to everyone in the US & Canada) conversions on Petrol (Gas?) cars is a common thing. Its the same situation, LPG is not available everywhere, and while most LPG cars can run on both fuels...you simply think ahead before you go on some unusual route. It becomes part of your planning for a long trip and that's all there is to it. If you run out of LPG, its a bad situation...you cant just go grab bottle of LPG, its a compressed gas, you actually need to either run the car on normal fuel (Petrol) or get it towed.

My bias opinion here is that someone probably mistreated their car, and Tesla told them something like "We tried to help you before this happened, but you ignored us...its in the terms you signed when you bought the car and now there is nothing else we can do to help"

Completely reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER23> What a terrible release. Is it still a rumor if the company who makes the product just confirmed that it's true? What happens when the battery runs all the way out? Why does it happen? What's being done to resolve it?

PR mastery indeed..

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder if as much digital ink would have been spilled on this whole kerfluffle if the original article had not used the term 'bricked'.

Bricking, at least in my mind, is something that happens suddenly usually when attempting something at least slightly risky. Jailbreaking iPhones, replacing your laptop harddrive, desoldering components in an audio amplifier and other 'warranty voiding' all carry some 'bricking' risk.

The situation with Tesla is more akin to leaving your (very expensive) bike out in the rain: Given enough time it will rust up and need to be extensively repaired but I don't think you would say you 'bricked' it...

<comment><USER25> It need not be risky or warranty voiding. Bricking has been applied to software updated pushed out by vendors in the past, so I don't think it implies anything more than something that causes something to lose all function and become inert, like a brik.

<comment><USER24> A vendor software push is risky even if well tested...

> "something that causes something to lose all function and become inert"

add "suddenly and without warning" and I'd agree with that definition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a good release, however there is a better way to present it.

By now, gasoline powered cars have been around for a hundred years. Everyone knows they are complex machines with lots of movings parts, and that they require regular maintenance to keep in working shape. What Tesla is putting forward here is the fact that the same principle applies to their electric cars: they need their own kind of TLC to be kept in good shape.

However, there is another point Tesla fails to get across. Over those hundred or so years, not only has the need to care of a gas-powered car entered into the public psyche, but also how that care must be carried out. Everyone knows that cars need oil changes and exhaust checks and all that. It's obvious by now.

However, that sort of awareness doesn't exist when it comes to electric cars. Saying they need care is great, but Tesla is missing an opportunity to develop the same sort of intuitive public awareness with regard to their vehicles. It's not just 'these cars need care,' it's 'these cars need care, and its of a kind you don't expect, that's OK because you haven't need raised on these vehicles since you were young.'

This way, the message would move from being an ever-so-slightly condescending implication that you forgot that electric cars need electricity, and refocuses on the need to augment the way in which people think about maintaining their vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a textbook example of a non-denial denial:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial>

</comment><comment><USER27> > The earliest Roadsters will take over two months to discharge if parked at a > 50 percent charge without being plugged in.

What exactly are the conditions for this statement to be true? My laptop battery has lost some of its capacity over the past 2 years - how much capacity do Roadsters lose over time? If I had bought one of the first 100 or whatever, what would that discharge figure be _now_?

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow. Great example of PR spin. It totally confirms the bricking claims by refusing to outright deny them. Instead it just repeats that you are supposed to recharge it and not let the batteries deplete, which is something everyone already acknowledges is true and is not a point of contention.

There is also a jab at a "single blogger" bringing the issue up, as if he is some rogue on a vendetta or looking for attention. But then not denying his claims makes this look like an insidious corporate attack on a journalist who actually brought to the public's attention a serious flaw with a product. Very similar to how GM's attacks on Ralph Nader back in the 1970s started. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Industry_re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Industry_response)

</comment><comment><USER28> I read this as, "yup, you'll brick your car if you don't keep it plugged in."

On the other hand, I manage to keep my cell phone charged at all times, so I can imagine that I'd be able to keep my car charged at all times. But I ride a bike, so this doesn't really affect me.

</comment><comment><USER29> Assuming Tesla PR is correct, then:

1- All modern battery packs, including laptops, have internal management circuitry that, among other things (like controlling charge so that they will not explode) not allow the damn thing to deplete. When 0% charge is reported the battery still has plenty of juice left.

2- With the given parasitic drain, the battery will last for at least a month left at 0% charge

3- If you leave you car at the airport, you kinda expect to be able to get back, so you won't leave the car at 0% when you depart. And even at 0%, you have a month to plug it in

So, barring a zombie apocalypse, what is the expected use-case that actual owners would encounter, to be able to destroy the batteries? It is certainly not normal usage.

</comment><comment><USER30> Tesla, what's the cost of bundling a solar trickle charger in with your vehicle? Either build it into the roof (next generation, obviously) or just buy one that sits on the dashboard and throw it in with purchase.

"Please to be using this when leaving vehicle at airport. Thank you much, Tesla."

Maybe there's some reason this won't work, but... you need to work with your customers' expectations. Some of them are going to leave the vehicle unplugged for a while, and they're going to be pissed if the vehicle battery is destroyed.

<comment><USER31> 30 watt drain. You will need 720 watt hours per day which will be around a square meter of solar cells.

Won't work in the parking garage, snow, or Seattle. Just don't leave your tesla at the airport of 12 weeks. That's expensive all by itself.

<comment><USER32> Do you need the full 30W to keep the battery alive, or is that for the whole electrical system on standby?

<comment><USER31> I suspect it is dominated by self discharge. By that is just guessing at the load.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't remember ever saying this before, and it's not even really plausible considering how relatively small HN is, but some of the comments here feel like they're directly from the mouth of Tesla.

I mean seriously. Cost doesn't matter? Time doesn't matter? Equating going on vacation without your car to never changing your oil?

Just because someone says it's neglect, or even has a contract that defines it that way, doesn't mean it's reasonable or even anywhere near the realm of common sense. That's just lawyer speak that is.

</comment><comment><USER34> The comments here seem to fall into two unrelated categories: "Tesla isn't telling customers the whole story" and "What did people expect to happen when they left their car unplugged for months?"

Both are valid points. Why are you arguing? The points don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Tesla has a lot going for it. They make innovative cars, and I would love to own one. That doesn't make the company's PR responses any less defensive and cagey. The response for this particular issue is a big turn off for me. I would definitely prefer that they didn't contradict themselves within the first three paragraphs.

I get it. Owners of Tesla cars need to charge their cars or they will be out $40,000. That makes sense to me. Batteries don't last forever. My Mother however doesn't care how the car works. She just wants it to work. She'll do the maintenance that you ask her to do, but she's not going to know why. So, she won't know why she can't leave the car at the airport for a month.

That's why it's important for Tesla to say, "yes this is an important issue that is part of maintaining your car." Not, "A single blogger is spreading a rumor about electric vehicles becoming inoperable." If my Mother read that last sentence, she might say to herself, "oh, I guess that blogger was just lying," and move on without reading the whole article, now assuming that it's not possible to "brick" her car.

I also lay some blame at Michael Degusta's feet. I don't think that it was appropriate for him to title his article "'It's A Brick' – Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem." I don't see this as a design problem. It works. The potential for bricking your car is just something you'll have to watch out for, just like not changing your oil is something you need to watch out for.

I think that Tesla was just reacting against the accusation that they had a design flaw. As long as they make sure that all of their customers know of the issue, it's not a design flaw. At that point it's maintenance. That's where I think that Tesla failed today. They skimped on their responsibility of informing the customer of important facts, so that they could come out smelling like roses.

P.S. Incidentally, if I were to take a trip to my mountain home in Italy for half a year, roughly how much would I expect to pay in electricity to keep my Tesla vehicle charged? Does it draw a constant amount of power for the entire time that I'm away?

<comment><USER28> If you can afford a $100,000 car, you are not going to leave it parked at the airport for a month. Tesla does not make cars for people that need a utility vehicle, they make toys for rich people. Some day, this technology will be mass market and the batteries will be more forgiving. Today is not that day.

<comment><USER34> I agree with you. But now that you mention it, it seems like utility vehicles get used more often. Rich toys often stay in the garage with the other rich toys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you don't do the basic, fundamental things to maintain your vehicle, it will no longer work.

If you are, in fact, unable to grasp that, then you will pay the cost.

How is this even a thing?

<comment><USER4> Um, because maintaining a gas/diesel/lpg vehicle (or a laptop) doesn't include keeping it continuously fueled up at the risk of $30K damage.

You don't keep your laptop or phone charged on penalty of battery replacement, so why pretend that you're not surprised at the Tesla result?

<comment><USER36> If you completely discharge a battery, it will take damage.

Also, quite obviously, the batteries used in the Tesla are the same kind used in your laptop or phone, just a vastly greater number of them.

So yes, maintaining a laptop means keeping it charged.

(How do people not know this? Battery 101)

<comment><USER37> Raises hand.

I did know that it's not good for the life of a battery to continuously deep discharge it. (Though I've seen so much different advice over the years about various battery technologies that someone might easily think it was better for batteries to run them down now and then, a belief that had at least some relevance to NiCads.)

However, I confess to not knowing that running down, say, a laptop and then letting it sit uncharged for a long period was a very bad thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This sounds a lot like breaking a timing belt on an engine with an interference design. (When that happens the cylinders plow into the valves and there's a lot of carnage).

On my car that's a $6-7000 fix if it happens. I bet if there were only 2,500 of those engines in the world it _would_ be a $40k fix, but economies of scale have made it cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER39> quote "spreading a rumor"

turns out in this case the rumor is true...

well the first automobiles needed to be started with a crank on the front grill. sometimes the crank would catch and whip around an break the user's arm.

its a neat thing that even in this day and age, people aren't completely shielded from being on the cutting edge.

the 2020 Teslas are going to be amazing.

</comment><comment><USER40> Even if it is in the owner's manual - and even if it is prominent in the manual - how many of you have ever actually read the manual when you get a new car? I know I have only ever looked when I actively needed something: the meaning of a warning light, how to operate the disc changer, something like that. It is entirely conceivable for someone to own a relatively new car for years without needed to look in there.

edit: and yes, I realize it would probably make sense to check it out when buying a type of car that is relatively new, but that doesn't mean even a significant minority of new owners will.

</comment><comment><USER41> Two words: Nissan Leaf.

Quote - "Nissan spokeswoman Katherine Zachary tells Motoramic that the all- electric Nissan Leaf "will never discharge completely, thanks to an advanced battery management system designed to protect the battery from damage." Thanks to a combination of different management and battery cells custom-designed for the car, Nissan has sold 22,000 Leafs and never suffered a similar failure. Tesla's acolytes may find no fault in the charges, but other automakers know there's little margin in blaming customers for not asking the right questions."

</comment><comment><USER42> The comparison of a fully discharged battery to the negligence of running a car with no or bad oil is disingenuous and likely manipulative. One is a passive issue of forgetting or not knowing a car requires charging when _not operating_, the other is an active negligence of operating a car that is unfit to run. I can neglect a car in storage for decades and getting it started will not require more than the cost of the car. At best it will require a tune-up and a full tank of gas.

</comment><comment><USER43> I registered at Tesla motors website so I could comment, but it says to login to comment, even when I'm logged in. When I click 'login' it says I'm already logged in.

I would like to ask if it's true or not that any batteries have become inoperable due to being drained completely. Also If that does occur, what is the cost of replacement, and is it at all covered by warranty.

It doesn't seem like that answer is forthcoming...

<comment><USER44> It seems pretty clear to me that they do not plan on offering warranties against batteries sitting unplugged for long periods of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> And so marks the conclusion of yet another Internet shitstorm. Sound and fury, gnashing of teeth, forgotten in a week.

All this has happened before, etc.

</comment><comment><USER45> Isn't the whole point of "electric cars" to save energy?

Here we learn that they need juice constantly to run "vital systems" and therefore consume energy at all times, even when not running. The owner cannot choose to let his car unplugged because then it'll break down completely and need to be repaired at a cost of 40% of the original price.

This is not progress.

</comment><comment><USER46> Incidentally, does anyone know why the wheels of a 'bricked' car would be locked up, preventing towing?

<comment><USER47> Yes, because the systems for disengaging the wheels from the drive train won't work without power.

<comment><USER48> Is that a fail-safe or the opposite of a fail-safe? I can't decide...

<comment><USER49> Consider a battery failure while parked on a hill

<comment><USER25> Park usually does two things--it slips a fixed tooth (pawl) into a gear on the output shaft of the transmission, effectively locking the driven wheels (i.e. front wheels on a front wheel drive car.) It will also unload the gears of the transmission the same as the neutral setting. This is why on some AT cars, the idle speed will creep up a tiny bit after put in PARK or NEUTRAL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> What happens if you leave a gasoline car for 6 months without driving it?

That is the comparison I would like to see.

<comment><USER30> If you disconnect one of your car battery terminals, it will be perfectly fine for six months. Reconnect the terminal and drive away. It's not necessary to do anything else.

The main danger is things like squirrels moving into your engine block, if it's outside.

<comment><USER50> Not sure why you were downvoted. Seems reasonable to me. And the animal threat is real.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Devices are not pets or children. They should not die through owner inaction.

</comment><comment><USER36> What is wrong with you people?

You are really trying to kill off cars because you got a horse carriage at home. The horse can when coupled reproduce itself, all it takes is some food and water to keep going, its unlikely to break down, you can be flexible by changing from a one-seater to carrying raw material in the blink of an eye.

Obviously, the horse is vastly superior to its new "car" competitor. Only a moron would invest in further developing the car, given that it was irrefutably shown to be inferior.

\-- On a more serious note, I really can't believe this. This is supposed to be a technologically informed crowd, but you are instead acting as if we've got an infinite amount of oil "somewhere down there" and that it's unacceptable to deviate from the three ton monster SUVs that roam the streets in the USA.

<comment><USER52> I feel you on this one, but building an industry on misinformation is not the way.

Another thought: maybe we need to stop being so obsessed and utterly dependent on cars in general. Live locally, support your community, become more self- reliant, leverage personal technogy.

<comment><USER53> From everything I've seen, Tesla's been pretty up front as far as what the battery needs, and what sorts of behaviors to expect.

As to your other thought, some of us do not want to ghettoize ourselves. Some of us have friends in areas that are, unfortunately, difficult to reach via public transportation. Living locally would mean disconnecting from a great number of people that I care about quite deeply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The original blogger and all the naysayers were completely insane to think this was some sort of design oversight and that the Model S would not include significant improvements.

</comment><comment><USER55> Even though this response doesn't address everything that was brought up by the original post, I still find this whole thing fascinating.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm still a bit astonished that they didn't implement a deep-sleep in the roadster, but it's good to see they will do it for the Model S.

</comment><comment><USER57> Seems like a little upselling going on in the defense. That is mastery.

</comment><comment><USER58> tl;dr don't take your tesla camping, or it will 'discharge' _cough_ brick _cough_

</comment><comment><USER59> One key issue that Tesla PR accidentally omits is whether owners are still responsible for 40K replacement if battery does indeed fail.

40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel- injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?

<comment><USER60> Of course you have to pay if you are stupid. Same thing if you destroy your gas-powered car on purpose using some other method. It is not a 'fail', which implies a manufacturing error or similar.

<comment> shock-value Except in this case you wouldn't be destroying the battery "on purpose" obviously, but rather through neglect or ignorance. It's a fail in the sense that this technology has been exposed to be clearly unready for wide-scale adoption, and the company in question has barely even acknowledged the issue, let alone outlined steps it is taking to fix it or improve the design.

<comment><USER61> You can neglect and ignore maintenance of gas-powered engines too. Stop getting oil changes and never check/refill it and see what happens to your engine.

It will eventually be "bricked".

Just like gas-powered vehicles need to be maintained, so do electric ones. EVs actually happen to require less maintenance. Simpler too. I would say that the EV equivalent of oil changes is to keep it charged above some minimum.

<comment><USER41> Err...it will take a _very_ long time for a conventional gas engine to get 'bricked' as you put it. And the cost to repair will not be $40K. This line of argument from the apologists it a little weak methinks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Is it true to say that other battery only electric cars don't have the same potential, sorry, to become a brick? If so, this PR response is pure fluff.

<comment><USER63> Other EVs have the same warnings in their manuals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> tl;dr - A Tesla car can in fact be bricked.

The blogger should write a follow-up article: "Tesla admits that cars can be bricked. They are just a little harder to brick than assumed."

</comment><comment> xl-brain So, I guess they are saying you can brick a Tesla roadster.

Just to add to the PR observations, I like how they have a few positive comments, but it is actually impossible to make comments on the post.</comment>


A virtual machine in Excel - <AUTHOR> http://hackaday.com/2014/12/25/writing-a-virtual-machine-in-excel/

<comment><USER3> There's a well-known technique for solving certain types of equations by making use of circular references, and people have simulated digital logic too (e.g. [http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~jeffsch/writing/SimPage.html](http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~jeffsch/writing/SimPage.html) and [http://makeyourownchip.tripod.com/flipflop_simulator.html](http://makeyourownchip.tripod.com/flipflop_simulator.html) ), but this is something even more ambitious. I wonder if this virtual machine could be driven by using a circular reference as an "oscillator" ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_oscillator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_oscillator) ) to increment a counter, and use that to fetch and execute instructions... the amount of actual functionality needed to implement a rudimentary CPU is surprisingly small.

The actual system a spreadsheet would best simulate is known as a "systolic array": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systolic_array](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systolic_array)

I don't know if it's something to do with culture but for some reason I see far more of this "lateral thinking" and clever creative solutions coming out of Europe and in particular East Europe and Russia than North America - <USER2> at the demoscene, for example.

<comment><USER4> I also live in Hungary and there is a saying "a Hungarian can enter the turnstile after you and leave before you" which is quite true. Everyday life here involves a lot of hacking/tinkering mostly because of the repercussions of bad decisions of our (not only past) leaders.

<comment><USER5> I think the correct quote is "If a Hungarian passes through a revolving door right after you he will come out before you". Many fellow Hungarians keep bringing this up because they think that it's a positive thing expressing how clever Hungarians are while in reality this is not exactly intended to flatter anyone. :)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the correction. I don't think that it is either positive or negative but it is true in general. In some cases it is useful but sometimes it annoys others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is quite fascinating that the localized Excel function names do not have some kind of internal reference/ID so a spreadsheet's language could simply be set by the user.

<comment><USER6> I think the problem with that is that Excel has a few 'almost like eval' functions. For example, SumIf takes a string like "> sin(2)". You would have to translate those strings at runtime, and may have to guess at the source language (that string might be input by the user)

Even if that isn't the case, the engine cannot know whether any macro will change formulas. There, you hit the really troublesome area. VBA has a full eval ([http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/office/ff193019%28v=...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/office/ff193019%28v=office.15%29.aspx)). Even ignoring that, things can get hairy because Excel localizes numbers (is that comma a decimal point or a thousands separator?) and list separators (does one use commas or semicolons as argument separators?)

I expect there are some edge cases here that makes this problem unsolvable in practice. Some people will have code that checks whether the string representation of a cell's value contains a comma to check whether it is >= 1000 (or <= -1000.00, but relatively, that is a 'minor' bug)</comment></comment>


This is what Google says search will look like under EU copyright laws - sahin-boydas https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/17/18186879/google-eu-copyright-laws-search-news-link-tax <comment> sahin-boydas [https://searchengineland.com/eu-copyright-directive- nearing-...](https://searchengineland.com/eu-copyright-directive-nearing- final-form-as-google-tests-stripped-down-news-serps-310494)</comment>


Ask HN: A decent bug tracker service to incorporate in website - <AUTHOR>

I'm going to be launching a web app soon and would like to add some sort of bug reporting. Is there a service that adds a subtle "Report error" or "Suggest Feature" button on a website and handle bug tracking and feature voting? I would prefer something opensource and free that I could host myself, however I would be open to a paywall service. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> You can have a look at ZenOpinion. Its paid but I used it on my site and its opensource so I could hack it to my needs.

</comment><comment><USER3> We use BugHerd and are mostly happy with it.</comment>


An American doctor experiences an NHS emergency room - <AUTHOR> http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/an-american-doctor-experiences-an-nhs-emergency-room/ <comment><USER3> I actually have directly relevant experience to the question of "What happens if you get something in your eye in the US and need to see a doctor urgently?" Don't read the following if you're squeamish.

About a year and a half ago, I dropped my iPad while on a flight from Japan to the US. The screen cracked in the top corner. I tentatively touched the screen, to see if the crack was dangerous. I did not cut my finger, but did succeed in transferring a very small piece of glass to my finger.

People touch their eyes frequently, often unconsciously.

Six hours later, after attempting self-irrigation on the plane and at the airport, I was at a hospital in Chicago seeing an eye doctor. Time from arrival at proper floor to being taken to room: three minutes ("glass in eye" cuts down on paperwork quite a bit). Time to arrival of doctor: approximately four minutes after that.

They successfully treated me for, possible misquote, "non-traumatic introduction of a foreign body to the eye." (The attending physician's first words, after reading the chart, were "How in God's name does an iPad screen end up in your eye?")

Treatment was approximately 15 minutes of a resident's time and 5 minutes of the attending physician's time plus one cotton swap and some iodine.

Total cost: approximately $300, plus twenty minutes of dealing with the billing clerk (after approximately 30 minutes of waiting for the billing clerk to be ready).

Most of the time with the billing clerk was a result of the clerk getting the run-around from a Japanese commercial travel insurance company. I customarily travel with private insurance which, among other things, covers me for medical emergencies while traveling. (Normally I'm covered by Japanese national insurance, which doesn't normally cover treatment of Americans in America for all the obvious reasons.) The insurance company denied reimbursement for elective medical treatment. Direct quote: You could have elected to leave it in your eye.

<comment><USER4> $300 ain't bad to save the sight in your eye.

<comment><USER5> It is, however, more than $0 (and presumably somewhat galling when you are already paying for health insurance.)

<comment><USER6> Is it more than nothing, where nothing == taxes? I'm guessing that the amount of your annual taxes that goes toward health care is > ($300 * chance of you incurring $300 in health care costs).

<comment><USER5> Why guess, when you could get some data?

In the UK, the per-capita spend on healthcare is $3480, of which $2919 is paid by the government (and so raised via taxes) and $561 is private (via health insurance or direct payment).

In the US, the per-capita spend is $8362, of which $4437 is paid by the government (via taxes) and $3925 is private (via health insurance).

This is only a cursory glance, but it does look a bit like nationalized healthcare results in lower private spending _and_ lower government spending (the extra spend in the US presumably goes into the pockets of doctors, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies).

Data sourced from the World Health Organization, via The Guardian[0]

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc...](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare- spending-world-country)

<comment><USER6> I wasn't really defending the US system in general, but I don't think nationalizing healthcare in the USA will lower taxes. The inefficiencies aren't inherent in privatized health care, they are a result of a corrupt system. The corruption isn't going to change if we give the government more control over the system.

<comment><USER7> > The inefficiencies aren't inherent in privatized health care

No, but lots of them _are_ inherent in having a nest of overlapping private and public health insurers (regular, workers compensation, and others) each of whom spend considerable resources making sure that they don't pay for something a _different_ insurer (public or private) could instead be compelled to pay for.

> they are a result of a corrupt system.

Believing that the excess costs in the US system are a result of "corruption" rather than the structural inefficiencies of the architecture of the system requires believing that Americans are unusually, among citizens of developed countries, corrupt. This is not utterly implausible, but it is a claim that requires some support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a Canadian, this doesn't surprise too much: People complain about wait times all the time, but the only wait times I've ever seen are for relatively stable situations that do not put the person at increased risk, e.g., corrective surgeries for non-threatening conditions, etc. (We can - and should - debate whether surgeries to correct intense chronic pain should be delayed as much as they often are, but current medico-political thinking appears to be that pain ain't so bad, contrary to current psychological thinking).

I've had a couple of exposures to emergency rooms and clinics over the last few years. The most telling was when I sliced open the back of my hand with an industrial fan. We cleaned and bandaged it, then applied ice, and I sat until the pain subsided and felt good enough to go the nearest clinic.

By the time I arrived, the pain and nausea had returned, but no biggie. I presented my healthcard and described the situation, which caused the three people behind the counter to pause and eye me as one asked "But you didn't break the skin, right?"

I did not get a chance to complete my reply, which started with "Yes, of course...". "Drop your card, come with me now".

The waiting room was more than half full, but I was priority number 1 for the next 15 minutes. A nurse carefully, delicately removed the dressing, then used a thin metal instrument to ever so carefully widen the cut and examine the tissue underneath. When satisfied, she sent me back to the waiting room where I sat for an hour and half.

I learned the full story when I returned for an x-ray the next day (I hurt myself on a Sunday, the basement x-ray lab was closed): Had I severed - <USER2> even cut - any of the tendons leading to my fingers, I would have rushed to the hospital to save my hand before the tendons shrank and dried into uselessness.

I didn't mind the 1.5 hour wait on the Sunday, or the combined 1.5 hours on the Monday, because when it came to what really mattered, there was no wait at all.

They only took my healthcard once the initial careful inspection was over. Billing and bean counting were irrelevant.

Note: I expect that billing for treatment of visiting foreign nationals will vary widely by province (anyone in the know care to chime in?), but that the overall triage process will be similar.

<comment><USER6> The strangest thing to me when I (an American) visited a Canadian hospital was that my "room" was just a curtain around a bed in the hallway. All the usual hospital room connections came out of holes in the wall, just like in a room, but it was in the hall. The curtain was just big enough to fit around the bed, so the doctor had to lean on my bed every time she entered.

<comment><USER9> This is the way most regional hospitals in the US are.

<comment><USER6> My mother was an RN in the US, she said she'd never heard of anything like it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, he got into one of the better hospitals by the looks of it, I am sure there are many. I'm surprised he was not billed, from what I read on wall posters in hospitals non-residents (or non-EU?) are charged for medical services.

Unfortunately had my share of landings in E&A and I was less than impressed. Generally bad/old looking buildings and rooms, not the most skilled staff - some of them were struggling to speak English, long waiting times (my record is 5h).

On the other hand many of the people working in the NHS are literally life saving heroes, so they deserve our respect. Any country on this planet that does not have a similar system can't call itself civilised. Luckily most of Europe has this in some form or another.

This is not to say that things can't be improved.

NHS could probably run 2 times better on half the money it currently spends; I think efficiency is FAR from being their strong point. At this size it takes a special kind of management to do stuff without huge waste - perhaps Toyota can lend a hand here.[1] :-)

[1] - [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-26/work- efficie...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-26/work-efficiency- lessons-from-toyotas-productivity-guru) etc

<comment><USER11> The NHS is regularly found to be one of the most efficient health services in the world (not to say it is anything like perfectly efficient, but it is about as efficient as humanity has managed in the healthcare arena to date). The idea it could be run at 4x efficiency is absurdly hyperbolic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > It makes you wonder exactly what frightens Americans about the NHS?

I'm less frightened of the NHS than of a hypothetical American version of the NHS, which would be run by the US government and have (mostly) Americans using it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've seen posters up in the local A&E that say something like "If you're a foreigner please be aware that we'll send you an invoice". And there's certainly been statements recently from politicians talking about doing this for the dreaded "immigrants".

I suspect that the total income from this would be tiny though, and perhaps not even enough to justify the administration costs. And my impression from staff at NHS hospitals is that they're just interested in helping you and really don't care if you didn't pay.

<comment><USER14> While management like to put these posters up, a friend who is a consultant in the NHS was quite clear when I asked him about it - he's a doctor, not a billing clerk and he doesn't care how obvious it is that someone is outside NHS cover, it's not his issue.

He's involved in things like kidney transplants where abuse is apparently rife - patients [outside NHS eligibility] often come from Xstan countries in renal failure and are critically ill (i.e. ambulance from the airport tarmac). Some of these people go to the top of the transplant list - which is why they got on the plane to England to begin with (plane ticket < cost of unlikely kidney transplant in home country). As far as he is concerned he treats the medical condition based on _need_ and anything else is up to management and he will not get involved in anything outside medical need.

Sounds like the registrar in the article has the same policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The NHS quality is dependent on where you are in the UK. For example my 92 year old grandmother cannot make an appointment in advance to see her GP (general practioner). Instead she has to call the practice from 8:30am to get put on a list for that day. If she is lucky enough to get through on the phone she then has to be lucky enough to have been one of the first patients to get through (it is normally engaged due to high demand). Once she is on the list she has to go down to the practice and wait. That wait could be up to 3 hours. She is blind and deaf.

I live in Germany on the other hand and I am privately insured. I can get to see a doctor easily. However my health insurance has a strange caveat in that I must see and be referred by my GP if I have to see a specialist doctor. My health insurance recently refused to pay for a visit that I made to the ER for a broken arm which was caused whilst playing football at 8pm (long after my GP had hone home). I was expected to wait until the next day in agony to complete their beaucratic hoop jumping.

That being said I like the UK system because it is free (excluding taxes), whilst in general the German quality of service is exemplary (although non private patients have a much poorer QoS). If I was seriously I'll with cancer or something that requires a expidited process between diagnosis and operation then I'd chose Germany every time.

<comment><USER16> Where I am, if you want a doctors appointment it's either a normal appointment or an "emergency". If it's not urgent, you ring up whenever and make an appointment, but it'll be a few days at least. I once waited a fortnight for something non-urgent.

But if it couldn't wait that long, you rang at surgery opening (8:00 iirc) and they give you a time for you to turn up. You turn up and then you wait to be seen. They fit you in as quickly as possible, average wait for me is usually about 45 minutes I guess?

Is it emergency appointments your nan is trying to get?

There's definitely an element of what we call "Postcode lottery", the quality and provisioning of medical care can vary based on where you live. But generally, while we British bitch and moan about it, it's brilliant.

Edit: which -> while we British

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The reason they didn't bill is that it would cost far more to set up a billing system than the revenue it would generate.

<comment><USER16> I guess that would depend on if we billed them at Yank rates ($1000 = ~£600) and if they paid it. I'd imagine it'd be like trying to get the American Embassy to pay the Congestion Charge (£8,775,965 owed and counting).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Biggest problem I see with the NHS is their major issue of dealing with randomness. Wait times are totally dependent on who and how many people walk through the door at any given moment. However managers have to post staff rosters 6 weeks in advance. The cost of calling in staff for extra cover is likely to double.

As a manager what do you do?

</comment><comment><USER19> Most doctors in the UK would be offended if you asked them how much do you have to pay while you are in a hospital. Some even would take it as you offering them some kind of a bribe.</comment>


How to safely generate a random number - <AUTHOR> http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2014/02/25/safely-generate-random-numbers/

<comment><USER2> So rather than using a function in the core library of the language that calls /dev/urandom, we should instead write our own wrapper around /dev/urandom? And this is supposed to be less prone to error?

<comment><USER3> Where does this article say that?

<comment><USER4> The article lists several userspace libraries (OpenSSL, SecureRandom) and then says not to use them. I had the same question as weavejester.

<comment><USER5> No. OpenSSL RAND_bytes and Java SecureRandom aren't simply libraries that "call /dev/urandom"; they are full-fledged CSPRNG designs, and must themselves avoid all the possible bugs a CSPRNG can have, in addition to their usual reliance on urandom not itself being vulnerable.

<comment><USER2> The NativePRNG algorithm for SecureRandom XORs /dev/urandom with a SHA1PRNG seeded from /dev/urandom, so as long as the XOR is correct, it should be no less secure than reading from /dev/urandom directly.

<comment><USER5> I would definitely avoid Java's SecureRandom. It means too many different things depending on what platform you're on. Meanwhile, XORing SHA1PRNG against /dev/urandom seems cryptographically nonsensical.

<comment><USER6> > XORing SHA1PRNG against /dev/urandom seems cryptographically nonsensical.

Untrue! Assuming that the two (/dev/urandom and SHA1PRNG) are not correlated, the resulting output will be at least as secure as the most secure of the two. This means that (for example) if SHA1PRNG is found to be breakable, SecureRandom will still be at least as secure as /dev/urandom, and vice versa.

<comment><USER5> This is a rabbit hole I don't want to go down and so I will concede the point about NativePRNG, while sticking to my guns on "avoid the Java SecureRandom interface".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Use urandom, but that's not the end of it. It may be that urandom supports non-blocking reads. Most implementations only check if read() returns -1 then abort, without checking for EAGAIN, not to mention EINTR, or some other subtleties like making sure not to request more than SSIZE_MAX bytes. The randombytes function in NaCl does it right, unfortunately libsodium did their own thing.

If you use Python, read from os.urandom, which is a wrapper to the system's CSPRNG. Don't use random.randint or random.getrandbits...

<comment><USER8> > The randombytes function in NaCl does it right, unfortunately libsodium did > their own thing.

I don't know what you're talking about. Sodium does the same thing as NaCl, while also being more portable.

<comment><USER7> No, libsodium does not do the same thing as NaCl.

NaCl:

[https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9234738](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9234738)

libsodium:

[https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium/blob/master/src/libsod...](https://github.com/jedisct1/libsodium/blob/master/src/libsodium/randombytes/sysrandom/randombytes_sysrandom.c)

<comment><USER8> I'm aware that the implementations are not strictly equal, but how is libsodium doing it 'wrong'? Is it because it does not partition reads into smaller chunks (avoiding the unspecified >= SSIZE_MAX read)? I consider any reasonable answer a valid bug report.

I should also point out that randombytes is technically not part of NaCl. The authors maintain that random byte generation is out of scope for NaCl, and what actually happens is that randombytes.o is bundled separately from libnacl.a [1]. In TweetNacl the randombytes implementation is completely omitted.

[1] [https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=20;bug=694...](https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=20;bug=694248#20)

<comment><USER7> Don't take my word for it, check libsodium with Frama-C (as NaCl was) and file the bug report yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I prefer the Munroe-Hatguy entropy collection method for pseudorandom number generation [1].

[1] [http://xkcd.com/221/](http://xkcd.com/221/)

<comment><USER10> I knew that link was going to show up. It's predictable that way.

</comment></comment><comment> luke-stanley Why is urandom meant to be more secure?

I read this: "So I'm the maintainer for Linux's /dev/random driver. "... "The main thing which I am much more worried about is that on various embedded systems, which do not have a fine-grained clock, and which is reading from flash which has a much more deterministic timing for their operations, is that when userspace tries to generate long-term public keys immediately after the machine is taken out of the box and plugged in, that there isn't a sufficient amount of entropy, and since most userspace applications use /dev/urandom since they don't want to block, that they end up with keys that aren't very random." \- [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/insecurities_...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/insecurities_in.html#c1909001)

Is that out of date?

Why so insistent? Why not provide reasons that people can openly verify?

<comment><USER5> urandom and /dev/random aren't two different CSPRNGs. They aren't really even two different designs. They are two different pools into which the same kinds of raw entropy are mixed; the interface to /dev/random's pool happens to have a weird gate on it that tries to determine how much "entropy" is "left" in the pool. I'm oversimplifying a little, but that's the gist of it.

So the problem here is, if you're on a solid state embedded system that doesn't generate enough entropy to drive urandom, you're not doing enough to drive /dev/random either --- except, owing to a design flaw in Linux, on first-boot-ever, where /dev/random's entropy estimator gate saves from you from the bug that is Linux's willingness to give you output from an unseeded RNG. It shouldn't do that. FreeBSD doesn't. But if you're worried about that problem, the correct fix is to explicitly seed urandom from /dev/random on boot, not to use /dev/random in your code!

Once the CSPRNG is seeded, the idea of a "sufficient amount of entropy" is silly. Think of a CSPRNG as a stream cipher. Think of its output as you would the keystream of that cipher. What does it mean, within reason (ie, not hundreds of terabytes) for a keystream to have "sufficient" key in it? Because that's essentially the same question the maintainer for /dev/random is asking.

<comment> luke-stanley How do we know there isn't some predictable pattern from common urandom sources? What is meant to make the state non-predictable anyway? If I cared about it, someone could just add a library on top of it that combines them with more entropy sources. Like camera noise, temperature changes, audio static etc. For some reason the author says not to build libraries on top of urandom because they might be hacked. Well if something has compromised your system anyway, why does that matter?

<comment><USER5> "The urandom sources"? What do you think that means? The code is right there.

<comment> luke-stanley I'm talking about the sources of it's random input, not it's source code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > For cryptography, you don't usually want "true random".

Wait what? I thought I wanted actually random numbers.

<comment><USER5> Chapter 9 of _Cryptography Engineering_ leads off with a dozen or so paragraphs on why crypto software doesn't use real random.

<comment><USER11> Thank you, I shall do some more (and better) reading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What about haveged? Is that good enough for crypto? [http://www.issihosts.com/haveged/](http://www.issihosts.com/haveged/)

</comment><comment><USER13> /dev/urandom is slow. So don't use it if you need lots of non secure random numbers. For example for game, or for a screensaver, etc.

<comment><USER14> If you want fast non-secure random numbers use Mersenne Twister: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister)

<comment><USER3> You can also get much faster secure random numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So, what specifically did Matt Green disagree with?

</comment><comment><USER16> This rant does more harm than good. Telling people not to use a library csprng is quite silly. Everything uses these and it's fine.

<comment><USER5> Yeah I mean, there's probably never been a urandom-based vulnerability in ordinary software, and "library csprngs" are the reason every Debian SSH was compromised and the reason Android Bitcoin wallets were generating colliding keys, but sure. Everything's fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone want to give a total count of wrong assertions in this article?

<comment><USER5> _popcorn.gif_

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I liked the part that said "urandom".</comment>


Wired Down? - <AUTHOR> http://wired.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems the root of the server is the only part resolving to that page:

Invalid URL The requested URL "/", is invalid. Reference #9.1414434d.1402061132.9ce07

[http://www.wired.com/2014/06/heartbleed-redux-another- gaping...](http://www.wired.com/2014/06/heartbleed-redux-another-gaping-wound- in-ssl-uncovered/)</comment>


Google, Facebook and Twitter will file court motions to support Apple against FBI - <AUTHOR> http://www.androidcentral.com/google-and-facebook-will-reportedly-file-amicus-briefs-supporting-apple-fight-fbi <comment><USER2> Cool. Hopefully these will be made public</comment>


Medical Database Synchronization - <AUTHOR> I am trying to synchronize my EHR with with a practice management software and a personal patient scheduling calendar. EHR company does not want me to. Any ideas of how I may do this and any suggestions how to go about convincing the EHR to let me do that? <comment><USER2> Most EMR/PMS integrations are just "hacks" and not a fully supported API from the vendor. Some vendors protect their systems better than others b most of them just require a ODBC (SQL based) connection with an high role user's credentials. Each one is a bit different so you'll have to chose which ones to start with. I tried doing something myself but ended up hiring someone who has been doing it for years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Trying to hire but just don't know where to find right person. Any suggestions?

<comment><USER2> [https://bridgeconnector.co/our- solutions/integrations/](https://bridgeconnector.co/our- solutions/integrations/)

[https://www.redoxengine.com/](https://www.redoxengine.com/)

Redox looks great but they didn't work with our specialty focused PMSs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Will try these

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What is their reason for not letting you do that? HIPAA compliance? Or do they offer a competing product?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response. "Tell us what you want the PMS to do and we will see if we can Tweak or EHR" to help"

<comment><USER3> I see...the problem is that a lot of these niche applications run on proprietary, often older software. I've run into this with trying to integrate hotel booking systems with websites, with financial institutions trying to add credit applications into apps, and car manufacturers trying to generate OEM incentive coupons. The EHR company may just have one developer working on integration, so you may not be able to get much movement on your custom integration</comment></comment></comment>


$5,000 for your dream project - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@yrashk/5-000-for-your-dream-project-c820494eadb4 <comment><USER2> I built and launched my project ([http://willyoudidyou.com](http://willyoudidyou.com)) but stalled on actually starting a company for it to accept payments, because of the expense. instead I am deferring to generating a mailing list of potential customers that I can launch to, so i'm not just burning limited cash on a project that goes nowhere. ( built it to solve my problems, so in a sense i've already won on that front)

I will say, being unemployed and trying to get a project off the ground is a mixed bag. You have the time to focus on it (awesome), but getting it to have any hope of supporting you is always farther in the distance than you can really ride out.

In that, I think this is a great thing to do. Some people just need extra runway or extra wiggle room to do something - and not having to give up your vision to get support is a an important perk. And I think most people, if they do get traction, would want to pay it back with interest, or at the very least pay it forward for someone else.</comment>


Powa failure – where did the money go? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36070904 <comment><USER2> It's not the first time Dan Wagner has done this - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Wagner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Wagner)

<comment><USER3> "He is best known for his leadership of Dialog and its subsequent 95% share price drop in 2000" \- well that's kind of a brutal biography there.

Powa does seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a full-vaporware company intended to scam as much funding as possible before the bubble bursts.

<comment><USER4> "Wagner became known for becoming a CEO of a public company in his 20s which is even more impressive given at the time he was 31"

Someone's had fun writing that biography

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised Dan Wagner was being so upbeat about things in the immediate leadup given the UK's "trading whilst insolvent" ability to go after directors. A £25m a year salary bill and £200k in the bank sounds rather close to be negligent rather than merely optimistic about raising more money.

<comment><USER6> And going bust and being unable to pay owed pay and statutory redundancy is fishy.

From bitter experience if any ex powa employees are reading check that your NI payments are up to date (you cant claim benefits if they are not) and that any pension contributions have been made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The numbers don't sound crazy... if you think of it as a well-established business.

But... it wasn't.

The rent was silly (South of the river in Southwark, or even in the Clerkenwell gap West of the City is far cheaper). The salaries sound like a mix of expensive contractors and averagely paid FTEs.

For a startup, those two figures alone can and should have been halved without impacting anything that the business did achieve.

That they didn't do this does strike me as negligent. Where is the bootstrapping? Where is the close eye on the finances? Where is the "only hire at a rate that allows us to maintain a £nk revenue per FTE"?

That's the reckless part, presuming that the tap of funding was never going to close on them.

<comment><USER8> You would think that all of that would be uncovered by the due diligence process performed by their investors or that the investors would have some kind of ongoing visibility of what the company was doing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone else find the writing style kind of odd?

<comment><USER6> No whats the issue you have?

<comment><USER9> I dont know, it "feels" machine generated, or translated.

<comment><USER10> Not sure if this is what you're picking up. Some bbc news articles are formed from ongoing coverage. What you end up with is a new lead into copy/pasted paragraphs from older articles followed by updated conclusions.

There's definitely old copy in this article, so maybe it's the lack of flow that seems off to you?

<comment><USER9> Sounds plausible, the whole article had a disconnected feel to it, possibly due to lack of narrative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So I'm going to mount a tiny defence of some of the stuff at Powa - the PoS platform was not a total bust. Delivery of it clearly was a total failure as it never went to market.

But as a cheap card reader to compete with iZettle at the $30 price point, it wasn't awful. The wider PoS terminal product with the stand, printer etc could also have been good and brought the price of PoS equipment down considerably.

But this effort was de-emphasised as the much more exciting (and IMHO pretty worthless) qr/soundprint/beacon-driven sales app.

And management were clearly living in cuckoo-land.

</comment><comment><USER12> This company boasted of so many clients but couldn't show any as an example because they were all "pre-launch". Seemed like a big pyramid scheme that no one bought in to.

</comment><comment><USER11> I only wish I'd charged them more when I contracted for them...

<comment><USER13> Can you add anything as to what the culture was like internally?

<comment><USER11> When I first started working with them there was an agile failure underway - teams dedicating multiple hours every day to the supposedly 'agile' process and getting nothing done. Nothing had been delivered for a year at that point.

Management must have got sick of it because they fired tens of people overnight. Also they then switched direction to their low-friction payment app, which was a solution looking for a problem (IMHO).

Didn't interact with management much. The 80+ inch tv, liquor cabinet and leather sofas on the upper floor tells me it wasn't always much about work..m</comment></comment></comment>


State of the Art in Lightweight Symmetric Cryptography [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/511.pdf <comment><USER2> "yubikey is supposed to be always carried by its owner, so that studying its power consumption is not practical for the adversary."

How is that a valid assumption? The YubiKey will be plugged into a device that the attackers might have compromised. They may instrument that device to do power analysis of it any time it's plugged in. On top of any direct attacks that are available.

<comment><USER3> Just a guess: if it's carried around and powered off and on, it does not have a steady temperature, leading to a lot of additional noise in power consumption (as opposed to repeatedly testing power consumption of a desktop CPU, which can be done in short intervals at nearly the same environmental conditions).</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hiring scam? - <AUTHOR> A friend of mine was hired on as a graphic designer for a company in San francisco, last friday, after 4 months of employment - she was told that Friday was the last day of her 4-month evaluation period - that the company will hire someone else into the 4-month evaluation now and then let her know if she was selected.
This was a total shock to her, and they had never mentioned anything about this prior.
This sounds highly suspect to me - that they are using people for 4-months at a time then dropping them prior to giving them any benefits.
What do you think? And what do you suggest she do? <comment><USER2> a) That behavior is grossly unprofessional.

b) Treat it like a firing, in all respects. I'd start looking for new employment immediately.

(Even if they came back with an offer, you should not work for a company that has that attitude with regards to FTEs. There is nothing wrong with "OK, now we're going to subject you to four months of unpaid downtime while we evaluate another guy for your job" - it is routine if you're a consultant billing several hundred an hour. If you're not, no, just no.)

c) On the plus side, she dodged a bullet there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree to treat it like a firing, and that she should move on. This just sounded super fishy -- I'll ask her about the contract/agreement.

Some time ago, when my wife got pregnant, she was let go from her job and they specifically told her it was because she was pregnant. She filed suit against them (ongoing) because they specifically said it was due to the pregnancy.

Sometimes companies do really shady stuff (like to my wife) and potentially hiring people for 4-month stints. Other times, they could just be using this as an "easier" way to fire someone - which is a bit passive aggressive.

I'll have to find out which it is in this case.

<comment><USER3> An important distinction to make here is that pregnant women are effectively a protected class. Your wife wasn't able to file suit because the company had been shady; she was able to file suit because the company violated employment law. Here it's not so clear what recourse your friend might have.

<comment><USER4> You mention "protected class". Would really appreciate some details.

<comment><USER5> In the US, there are laws specifically protecting people from being fired from jobs for certain reasons.

These almost universally include race, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, becoming pregnant, being required to participate in a mandatory action like jury duty, and I think being recalled to the military if you are on inactive status.

If an employer violates these, the ex-employee has grounds to sue.

<comment><USER6> Sexual orientation is not universally a protected class. I don't know about non-US employment law, but at least in the US, I believe it is on a state-by- state basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Move on.

What are her alternatives?

Even if they were legally required to keep her on longer, would she _want_ to work for them?

Even if she could sue, does she want to be involved in a legal battle while trying to find a new job?

</comment><comment><USER8> What is the name of the company?

</comment><comment><USER9> The overhead of learning curve of a new person is significantly higher than benefits they would save.

Most likely reason for firing is that they did not benefit enough from your friend work (for example because the work is a mismatch between what they need and her passion).

</comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like they're just firing her but want to make it less emotionally "unpleasant" so they're calling it the end of her evaluation period. Kind of a lame thing to do.

</comment><comment><USER11> There is no reason to keep in an company that treats a employee like this, or at least make you feel so uncomfortable and worried.

</comment><comment><USER12> Restaurants do this all the time in Sweden with waitresses, except they say "You were not what we were looking for." instead.

<comment><USER13> Tiny bit of background is useful here:

The US has very lax employment regulation. You can be fired for any reason at any time.

Most of Europe, the Nordic countries in particular, have stringent regulation. Continuous employment can only be terminated for cause. In the last decade or so, it has become relatively common to try to circumvent this by hiring with back-to-back temporary contracts (usually 6-12 months) which are against the spirit – and often letter – of the law; they're only supposed to be used when there is a specific reason for being temporary. This poses all kinds of problems like vacations, maternity-/paternity leave and a general lack of life security.

Lately legislation has been discovered that allows "trial periods" to be abused: the trials are often of excessive length, 4-6 months, and people can be summarily dismissed without having to give notice (normally at least a month, often longer), vacation &c. This is obviously much more common in relatively low-skill jobs where the _actual_ training doesn't take much of an investment.

<comment><USER14> "You can be fired for any reason at any time."

I see what you are trying to say, but it's not entirely true. You can be fired for any reason, as long as it's not illegal (discriminatory, because of a disability, a pregnancy, whistleblower, union organizer, etc).

This is why often, when you get fired, the company is better off not telling you why (cover their asses). At least that's what counsel of some companies would say.

I've seen the other side of the coin in countries that have employee protections in place. Where it can be abused (ie, everyone is an independent contractor), employees lose as they have no benefits. Where it cannot, employees lose out because it's not worth it to invest in hiring people. Overall, IMO it is bad overall to give employees too much protection. In this aspect, I think the American system is as close to perfect as it gets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wow, that's just mean.

That company deserves to have their name dragged out into public.

</comment><comment><USER16> I agree with much that's been said already, but I'll add this: your friend needs a hug.

</comment><comment><USER17> What did her contract say?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll find out tomorrow.

<comment><USER3> It is extraordinarily unlikely that her contract is going to have anything in it that protects her from (what is in effect) constructive termination. Boilerplate employment contracts are designed specifically to avoid conferring obligations on the company.

On the plus side, at-will employment is a huge boon to those of us who start companies, and is one of the major differences between the US and Europe. So there's that.

Like everyone else is implying, the best way she can get back at them is to find a way to make sure the name of this company gets out. I wouldn't do business of any sort with a firm that employed this tactic.

<comment><USER18> It's worth adding however that contracts aren't alway bullet proof either. Contracts are supposed to be binding, but there are ways to wiggle out of clauses here and there, when you can argue that things are unreasonable. That said, knocking out clauses in a contract isn't going to help here. If there is any additional paper trail (say emails) that indicates they were misleading your, or that this is regular behavior, that may be a different matter.

But tptacek is likely correct that there probably isn't any recourse in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A temporary 6-month employment contract with a permanent employment option by the end of the probationary period is common practice here in South Africa.

<comment><USER20> A probationary period is common in Canada too, but it is always mentioned up- front and I have never heard of a company trying out several potential employees in a series of probationary periods.

Maybe they weren't happy with her at the end of her probationary period, but are too weak to outright fire her?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why would you call this a scam? She got fired, that's all.</comment>


The STEM Crisis Is a Myth (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth <comment><USER2> There is no such thing as a "STEM job". There are computer science jobs and marine biology jobs, both under the rubric of STEM, but the skill sets are not fungible and the employment prospects are wildly different. We can simultaneously produce more STEM graduates than jobs _and_ have a shortage of workers for STEM jobs.

The most popular STEM degree by a large margin is psychology, many more than all engineering disciplines combined. That psychology majors can't find work implies little about the demand for engineers.

<comment><USER3> I don't think psychology is typically considered STEM.

<comment><USER4> According to the article, it is by the NSF and not by the commerce department.

<comment><USER5> Psychology sits in a really weird (and interesting!) place between the social sciences and "hard" sciences. I thus find either classification reasonable, as unhelpful as that may be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Slightly off topic, but I feel like when people talk of STEM as a lucrative field of study, they tend to imply CS. Non-CS STEM field hardly have a shortage of qualified and talented people. In fact, there's probably a oversupply compared to job prospects in non-CS STEM fields. I see so many talented Math/Physics majors end up switching to CS and do mundane software engineering work.

<comment><USER7> It's much worse in life-sciences where PhDs are washing pipettes or feeding mice.

<comment><USER8> ...and yet those in the life sciences who took a more practical path, for example, nurses, are both well paid and in high demand.

<comment><USER9> Well paid nurses? Which country would that be?

<comment><USER10> Median income in 2017 was $52k for men and $42k for women [1]

Median income for an RN in 2017 was $70k [2]

So, in the US it's fair to say that nurse is a moderately well paid job. Of course compared to west coast tech salaries that doesn't look so amazing, but compared to what many life sciences PhDs are earning while fighting for a tenure track job it doesn't look so bad

[1] [https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-26...](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-263.html) [2] [https://m.nurse.plus/how-much-nurses-make/](https://m.nurse.plus/how- much-nurses-make/)

<comment><USER11> There is demand at low wages considering they have to work Long shifts and all hours of the day often rotating between days and nights

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems to me that there is a shortage of qualified employees and yet also a shortage of jobs in every single well-paid, well regarded sector.

It's almost as if we want people to train themselves to work doing hard stuff and also don't want to pay them to do it. In other news, water is wet.

<comment><USER13> Engineering and programming? There is a shortage of people.

Plenty of jobs.

<comment><USER11> No shortage of people only a shortage of people willing to work for less than market rate. Tesla for example can't hire and keep talented people because it's well known that wages are modestly low for a job that expects 60+hrs a week in a high col area

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The local schools here now call it STEAM, include in "Arts" and now say:

>"It will include subjects like history, social studies, and language arts, all of which are vital facets of a STEAM curriculum."

and now STEM has no meaning anymore (if it ever did).

These are all fine subjects, but they miss the point of the push for STEM that was based on the theory that Americans are falling behind in Math, Science, and Engineering and we need these to be competitive.

<comment><USER15> STEAM just correctly recognizes that STEM people systematically underrate the importance of history and social studies.

<comment><USER16> It's not a question of importance, but abundance.

Looking at salaries there is an over abundance of history and social studies graduates. It's simply a supply vs demand imbalance, and one that has real consequences.

Many STEM fields are also over saturated, and some arts fields can make a good career path. But, nuances are not really the point of this discussion.

<comment><USER15> Yes, you have successfully identified a structural issue with modern capitalism.

<comment><USER17> Care to point out what you believe is the structural issue?

<comment><USER15> That the labor of historians and social scientists is undervalued compared to the benefit they bring to humanity. There is no incentive for a large tech corp to have historians as C-level officers, even though it's a no brainier logically.

This happens because shareholder value is the only thing corporations are optimized for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The only people who honestly think there are a shortage of stem workers are those who aren't in stem.

<comment><USER19> I am in STEM and I honestly think there's a shortage of _smart_ STEM workers, because not every person trained or experienced in STEM is someone I would hire.

Ask around, you'll find quite a few people like me.

<comment><USER20> That's like saying there's a shortage of good STEM jobs because I wouldn't take any STEM job out there.

<comment><USER21> They're not mutually exclusive; I'm starting to think that the market for coders is basically a market for lemons.

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

So we end up with employers who don't want to pay top dollar in case they get a lemon, and competent developers who are either happy where they are or unwilling to work for lemon rates.

And have you interviewed candidates for development positions recently? It is depressing, and I say that as someone who catches flak about being too generous and letting too many "poor-quality" candidates through screens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am starting to disagree with what I an also starting to call "The Religion of STEM". I say this as a card-carrying believer. And yet, I am starting to leave yet one more religion behind in favor of what I think is truly lacking with our approach to education:

Entrepreneurship, business, personal finances and multiple servings of critical reasoning. And more...

Kids, after thirteen years of schooling, are handed to society with virtually no marketable skills whatsoever. Zero. The only two paths they have are:

-College

-Stacking boxes at Office Depot (or making coffee, etc)

Knowing how to code, I hate to say, is the last thing most people need in life. It is, without a doubt, a useless skill for the vast majority of HS graduates. What we should be teaching, we do not.

They need to learn all of the above as well as walk out of school with one or more marketable skills.

Love STEM. I even mentor a local HS robotics team. We need to do more. Education is broken.

</comment><comment><USER23> Here's how these inflated numbers come about:

Companies notice that they're getting less applicants with higher salary expectations.

When those companies are surveyed by the government, they cry wolf: "There's a shortage of workers!" they exclaim, when really it's just a "shortage" in the number of applicants with the same salary expectations as before - a trend that has to be nipped in the bud.

The goal then is to have policy bring labor supply back in favor of the companies, by dumping money into education and liberalizing immigration. Essentially, it's another bit of corporate welfare that can be marketed as philantropy.

The joke's on them though, because unlike most other professions, software developers have the ability to create more work than there would have been, had they never been hired in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER24> The current STEM efforts do seem to be filling a need, but I do feel that this is going to lag and overshoot the market. Education needs to have good fundamentals and not only crank out grads for software as a trade.

Same thing happened when the telephone got popular and the demand for switchboard operators exploded. "At this rate, everyone's going to have to be a switchboard operator." Then they added dialers to phones. We just need better spreadsheets.

</comment><comment><USER25> Covered by Eric Weinstein [https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research- papers/how-a...](https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/how- and-why-government-universities-and-industry-create-domestic-labor-shortages- of-scientists-and-high-tech-workers)

</comment><comment><USER26> The constant talk about sexism, racism, ageism, etc in our industry almost completely disproves "STEM shortage" argument.

If such people exist, it won't be long before someone realizes they can hire these people cheaply because they are less in demand. Undercutting your labor costs gives a massive competitive advantage bringing products to market. There are thousands of startups every year started by a very wide variety of people from widely different backgrounds.

Ageism is a particularly good canary in the coalmine. If someone has decades of relevant experience and you can't find anyone, why wouldn't you hire them and if they've worked for your company for years and know all the subsystems well, why would you ever think of firing them and hiring someone else?

This frivolous misuse of human capital shows that overall, there must certainly be a surplus of talent rather than a deficit.

A great counterpoint to prove this is/was the web boom. Web talent used to be priced at $50-60K because such people were everywhere. Once Javascript became fast and highly-interactive websites and web apps became hugely in demand, a localized deficit started.

The reason for the localized deficit is obvious, but worth reiterating. The development tools and language were considered frustrating to learn and use by other programmers. There was a "not a real dev" stigma. IE and other cross- platform issues were hard to deal with. Powered by the new, fast JS engines, a glut of new APIs surfaced which led to another glut of CSS features -- all taking almost super-human effort to keep up with. Complicating this, most frontend developers up to that point didn't have strong programming skills, so you had either experienced programmers or knowledgeable frontend developers with a very small overlap.

The result has been to hire everyone. In 2010-2015 especially, if you had 50 people apply, probably only one person qualified (and if you found two, it was worth considering hiring them both). With real choices being that limited, companies simply cannot afford to waste time to market trying to find a candidate that "is the right fit" or whatever the BS "ism" label is in that area. Even people with no programming experience outside of a couple months of "boot camp" have a chance at getting hired.

As time has gone by, that drought has become at least mostly slaked. Companies can be a little pickier about whom they hire and wages have mostly stabilized at a bit over average programmer rates (which seems to account for the extra troubles of frontend development over most other types of programming).

I'm betting that once the current tech bubble bursts and wages plummet, we'll still keep hearing about the shortage of programmers who will work for $40K per year.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm curious: fundamentally, can the economy find a place for many more talented STEM people ?

And if not, what's missing - useful ideas ? capital ? management ? Something else ?

<comment><USER28> I believe there is a small number of people who do the hard work on innovative projects and move humanity forward. The rest of us is ideally helping out with the easier parts and maybe impeding said work. More of those key people would mean more economic growth around whatever they are doing.

Can you get more of them?

Yes if many smart people currently avoid STEM because it is low status, hard, and not really paid well compared to things really smart people can achieve.

No if people who have the ability to do the hard work are inevitably drawn into it anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Note that this piece is from 2013. I think that should be indicated parenthetically in the title.

<comment><USER29> It was a myth much longer ago than 2013 yet the article is no less valid today. In fact with the rise of bootcamps and so on it has gotten even worse in software particularly. There should be laws against bootcamps ripping off hopefuls with false promises.

<comment><USER30> What false promises? Many of them graduate and are getting real jobs. One of the fastest growing new boot camps even lets people attend for free and makes back their money as a percentage of future salaries earned. Nothing could be further from ripping students off with false promises of jobs.

<comment><USER29> You must have seen the ads... "average salary in data science/cyber security/whatever is $$$" with the clear implication that taking their $$$ 8-week course will let you sail into one of these jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> [2013]

</comment><comment><USER31> Yet another article with the same premise: "there is no shortage of scientists and engineers, there are enough of them!"

Take a moment to read through the article. First it tries to show that STEM graduates are such a small proportion of the total labor force, only 3-4%, the implication being that such a small proportion shouldn't deserve the attention the get. OK, fine you're arguing that it's hype.

Next, cherry pick data to show that not all STEM graduates from this tiny sector can all find jobs. Yes, this is not a factory, you can't just train someone and expect them to be productive in STEM. It's not the same as pushing buttons or lifting things, it requires much more from the person which is why you can't mass manufacture STEM graduates. Just because not all STEM graduates can find jobs means that it's a hype? Okay.

Next, sprinkle some grievances about STEM being used to justify increasing the number of H1Bs, and now you've got the racists, the "H1B workers are why I don't have a great job" crowd. Nice.

Oh, don't forget the quotations of authority figures sounding alarm about the lack of engineers. The same alarm, that helped US education systems include more technical training to keep up with schools everywhere else who were in the same race. This is not some secret, all countries know the importance of high skilled labor force.

The wealth and prosperity we see in most nations today is precisely due to the work of millions of STEM graduates, creating innovations and technologies that constantly drive down costs of manufacturing and transportation, increased labor productivity, gave us fucking smartphones and internet everywhere devices and are currently bringing down the costs of renewables so rapidly that even Texas is going all in on wind energy.

I'm very upset that this appears in ieee though. I imagined that to be a respectable academic institution and not one that would allow such a poorly researched and hyperbolic article to be published.</comment>


A look at MVC and Development on the Web vs ObjC - <AUTHOR> http://thenerdary.net/articles/entry/web-app-development

<comment><AUTHOR> I found the Rails implementation of MVC to be the easiest to learn of the 4 I've worked with (.NET, CodeIgniter/Kohana, Rails, ObjC), followed by CodeIgniter/Kohana. Rails made it clear from the very start with its "Everything is an object" mantra that I could always expect to things to just work if I treated everything like an object, and did a great job separating the three components of MVC. My views in Rails have always looked a whole lot cleaner and simpler than NIBs or .aspx files or even the CodeIgniter view files.

However, I must say I can work a whole lot faster in ObjC now, mostly thanks to XCode's awesome debugging tools.</comment>