Goldman Sachs: Windows' true market share is just 20% - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_20percent/ <comment><USER2> The graph is designed to make it appear that the total number of devices is constant, which makes it looks like Microsoft is losing ground. What's actually happened is that the market has grown significantly, considering that their definition of 'market' includes a bunch of platforms that didn't exist a few years ago. That growth didn't happen on MS-based devices, hence the smaller market share.

A less biased visualization would have varying heights of each stack to show the absolute number of devices.

<comment><USER3> The article specifically talks about the "global computing market" ... So it's referring to market share, not number of devices. Nothing misleading here.

<comment><USER4> Still, the article says "Microsoft is in danger of becoming a small player in today's global computing market". Which is not backed up by the data provided by the article. Unless we have the raw numbers, it could well be that Microsoft has been growing.

The fact that the total share of MS has been shrinking doesn't necessarily mean that MS is a small player in the global market.

<comment><USER5> "The fact that the total share of MS has been shrinking doesn't necessarily mean that MS is a small player in the global market."

That depends on the context. If you are trying to decide which OS to develop your software for, market share (with some adjustment for the willingness of users of a certain OS to actually pay money for software) is the critical factor. While Microsoft may still be large in terms of number of installations or dollars, losing on market share is significant. In the past, most software was developed for Windows first, and then OSX or Linux if the developer got around to it, which gave Windows a huge advantage in the market regardless of whether or not it was the best from a technological standpoint. Also, market share allowed Microsoft to essentially dictate "standards" (remember all of those websites that required ActiveX?). Microsoft may still be big and wealthy, but losing on market share really does change things -- it makes them "small" in a sense.

<comment><USER2> If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to develop your software on, and market share is a significant factor in your decision, you're going to choose something cross-platform. That's most likely web, but even if you choose one of the toolkits your choice is going to impact all of the OS producers equally: their marketshare will not be impacted at all by you, unless they actively inhibit cross-platform development on their OS. MS used to do that but not anymore; Apple tries to keep the wall around their garden but they don't block cross-platform completely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Their definition of 'market' being 'all consumer computing devices', so obviously the picture changes rapidly after 2005 with the smartphone and tablet explosion. Its not really news that Microsoft are not doing well if you look at the whole universe of computing devices.

The headline is a bit misleading as it implies something more interesting, along the lines of 'microsoft not as dominant in desktop as people assume' ... but thats not what its about.

I wonder if Goldman's count X-Box as a consumer computing device? I bet they don't, not that it would make that much difference to the stats.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. It's similar to comparing Intel to ARM. Outside of business the OS is becoming less important to the consumer than it used to be. IMHO the key for Microsoft is maintaining its hold on the corporate market. In that regard the key product is not Windows but Office.

<comment><USER8> That's right, Office is everywhere. And they use that to leverage Sharepoint, Exchange and other systems. There's no shame in being number 1 in the corporate world and number 4 or 5 in the consumer market. :)

Though they do have the xbox.

<comment><USER9> _There's no shame in being number 1 in the corporate world and number 4 or 5 in the consumer market._

That statement is probably not as easy to swallow for a company that was worth $850bil (in today's dollar) just 13 years ago.

Edit: clarify value accounting for inflation

<comment><USER10> Well, it is a cycle you know? Microsoft in the 90's looked as impossible to beat down as IBM looked back in the 70's and IBM still exists and it is strong, but is not longer that unbeatable beast that used to be.

I wonder if, in a few years, I will be writing this statement again but comparing Apple/Google with Facebook/Twitter/Whatever-is-coming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "If left without a meaningful competitor in tablets, we believe Apple's dominant share of tablets will act as an anchor that pulls its smartphone share ... steadily upward over time"

Hm, that's not how anchors typically work.

<comment><USER12> "The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in _The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot_ \-- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking." --Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The first question to ask about any market-share figure is "Of what market?" Goldman Sachs are defining things using a much broader market than most people would consider useful. Maybe there's something to it, but to call it "true market share" at this point is more than a bit of a reach.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone understand what's happening in their graph[1] in 2005? I don't understand what would cause Apple to jump from 5-25% in one year, 2 years before the iPhone.

[1] [http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/13/goldman_platform_chart_lg.p...](http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/13/goldman_platform_chart_lg.png)

<comment><USER15> They probably changed their methodology but forgot to say it.

<comment><USER16> I agree. 'Other' category jumped from 0 to 29% as well. Likely at this point they started considering a wider range of devices or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not that I think this is accurate by any stretch, but what would account for the massive jump in "Other" in 2005. Smart phones like Nokia before iPhone + Android?

<comment><USER18> I wondered the same thing, at first glance I thought that was GOOG's slice of the pie - 4 different shades of blue doesn't make for a good contrast. Then I decided it had to be RIM/Blackberry.

<comment><USER17> Wow. RIM hadn't even entered my thought process. Funny how quickly things change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Microsoft needs to get back to the basics. Why must they continue to try and be apple. They are not apple. they are a software company.

Business still use windows for all applications. Excel and Word are the only things keeping them alive. They MUST come up with a new OS that is similar to XP/Vista/7 that is more useable in order for them to stay competitive in the OS market. Imagine when google releases a free OS with free excel/word.

I think Microsoft needs to focus on useability and superior UI. They just keep cluttering things up more and more and making it harder to do simple tasks.

<comment><USER20> While I do agree that Microsoft probably needs to change their direction a bit (I'm not fan of Windows 8, but then, I'm a Linux user so that speaks for itself), I don't completely agree with your assertion.

First, think about what you said. "Excel and Word are the only things keeping them alive."

That's a generalization. Yes, Office is most certainly their _cash cow_ , and generates tons of revenue from businesses and enterprise in general (to say nothing about higher education and government). But guess what? Office users will (generally) have Windows installed, particularly in larger enterprises. So, using one almost guarantees using the other.

I think it also ignores Microsoft's gaming division (think Xbox _et al_ ). So, no, I don't think MS is quite as badly done for as some may think. Focusing on Windows and Windows' success (or failure) exclusively is to ignore the rest of the picture.

I do agree that they may need to reconsider what path they're on (they've been doing some soul-searching to that end) but on the other hand, it's equally important to remember that Microsoft enjoys a lot of momentum in the marketplace, most especially with big business and many governments. Could Windows 8 change that? Maybe. Heck, it might even hurt them down the road. But terms like "vendor lock-in" exist for a reason, and I believe MS has previously done a fantastic job at illustrating why. The death of Windows won't be sudden, and it certainly won't be proclaimed first by Goldman Sachs.

<comment><USER19> You just agreed with me. A lot of people use windows because of office. This is why people have windows installed, particularly in larger enterprises.

Using one (Excel and word), does guarantee the other (windows). .Doc and .xls are standardized much like .pdf.

Yes, Xbox is a contributing factor, but still...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I like how they imply that the desktop is dead, imply tablets and smartphones are the future cause the new generations buys them and then backs Smart TVs..... which I'm guessing is a generational dead-end.

</comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone know of any studies that support the article's statement that Apple, when combining OSX and iOS, has more users than Windows now? If you ignore legacy devices still in use I could possibly, maybe, see that. Although, if you count total devices existing in the market, which the graph seems to ignore, I just can't agree with that notion.

Plus, based on the speed of innovation in this market, making predictions up to four years into the future is highly optimistic on their part.

</comment><comment><USER23> If they are going to compute market share of MSFT by framing it in terms of "market share of consumer compute" and including all sorts of mobile devices, then they should weight each device by the computing power it has accordingly.

Otherwise the number the come up with will underestimate the true market share of "consumer compute" of MSFT.

Or is that what they are aiming for?

</comment><comment><USER24> "if you don't know, now you know"

whatever Goldman says, do the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER25> Earlier post about same underlying story, take from a different site: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4904151>

</comment><comment><USER26> Why would anyone trust that statistics released by Goldman Sachs weren't designed to manipulate the market in their favour?

</comment><comment><USER27> Goldman Sachs: the crooks that funded Spinvox. Absolute frauds and liars.

</comment><comment><USER28> First, this is counting Android phones many of which are being used as updated feature phones rather than even a browsing device.

Second, this is counting what are being sold the last quarter and ignoring install base and the increasingly longer upgrade cycle of PCs.

For a better picture of install base and actual usage, see [http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww- monthly-2011...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww- monthly-201111-201211)

The entire mobile devices are at ~15%.

Third, this is Goldman Sachs, they might be shorting Microsoft stock now and will buy and upgrade it later just like they bought millions of shares of Nokia when they downgraded it and then the stock more than doubled recently, and GS made tens of millions at the least. Read the very interesting article below showing GS not following their own advice and doing a reverse dump and pump.

[http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and- mo...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-morgan- stanley-are-backing-the-truck-up-for-nokia-shares)

Then we have the Register writing flamebait articles with linkbait headlines, completing the circle of worthless blogspam flamebait junk.

<comment><USER29> Yeah, there's always an angle with these guys.

Trust what they say publicly as far as you can throw them... And only trust what they say privately if you have a gun to their head.

<comment><USER30> Is this really what the Goldman brand is worth these days? Not that I disagree with you, but you have to wonder: given that they rely so heavily on their name, this level of distrust must be affecting them. Nobody wants to do business with the mob if you can avoid it.

<comment><USER31> Who do they rely on their name with? For investors, the image of a company of scheming masterminds who outthink everyone else in the market and make a profit off everything they do is probably actively helpful.

<comment><USER29> Yes, there are a certain class of people who actually see this shady bullshit in a positive light.

Right up until they get stung too, then they have the nerve to be outraged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Since they are throwing desktop operating systems in the same cluster as tablets and phones, why did they omit all the different OSs for cars, manufacturing and power plants, heavy machinery, TV sets, satellite boxes, and so on? At least that would be a true "OS market overview". They are cherry- picking a slice of the OS market by the common denominator "consumer products" and lumping a select few totally distinct segments into a single worthless graph.

Not that I would have expected anything more sophisticated from Goldman Sachs, though.

<comment><USER33> As someone above said, they limited the scope to all consumer computing devices. A car is not a computing device per say, even if it has computer parts. Same goes for power plants, heavy machinery, TV sets and satellite boxes.

One could argue that electronic calculator should be included, but I am not sure it would actually change anything.

<comment><USER34> Can you define what a computing device is, per say?

<comment><USER33> A general general purpose device that can be programmed by the user to perform tasks beyond what was initially designed into the device.

This is my view, and not the only definition that exists. But if we want to avoid having to include every item ever produced in the last 10 years or so, the definition of a computer device needs to be slightly limited. Some Teddy bears nowadays has FPGAs in them. If everything from a stuffed toy bear to a 600 ton airplane can be called "a computer", "a computer" loses its meaning.

<comment><USER35> At a minimum, then, that would include graphing calculators.

Also, while most routers aren't exactly intended to be programmed, it's pretty easy. Easier than reflashing an iPhone, which is considered a general-purpose device, even though it's not really user reprogrammable.

Heck, the Canon Hack Development Kit makes a lot of 'dumb' cameras as easily reprogrammable as an iPhone.

And as others have noted, this study apparently excludes gaming consoles, which seems to me an unreasonable omission by any definition. ( I think the most reasonable definition that captures what you're trying to say is "something designed to run third-party applications." )

<comment><USER33> Agree.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's your daily fitness routine? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Every Tue/Thu/Sat after waking up I drink a strong black coffee and eat 6-8 eggs omelet with cheese. Read news, catch up with the Internet for 40-60 min. Then do a lifting routine for 60-80 min. I follow a slightly modified SL5x5 + Greyskull LP system (can't bench heavy with my dislocated shoulder).

I think lifting is great for gamification, every time you try to increase a little bit (Greyskull advocates for "partial plates" which are sets of plates of 0.5-2 lb that let you increase very slightly). Looking at charts over time feels great, and when you plateau or have to deload because of sickness or skips, you know what you did wrong, and you get back to it.

For cardio mostly every day I bike to/from work, about 50 min or so each way at moderate speed.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do bodyweight exercises, using the book 'The Supple Leopard' as guide on how to do pull ups/chin ups/push ups/dips/rows/squats/hanging leg raises properly. I had to buy a tall bar to do this, which is difficult as almost every freestanding bar sold is too short to lock out your legs during pull ups if you're over 6'.

Generally I get up very early and do 35 mins on a stationary bike with intervals of sprinting. I don't do this for fitness reasons as getting your heart rate up for 30+ mins in the morning, at least for me, leads to better concentration when I'm working as in better focus to do hard mental tasks. After the bike I do all the above bodyweight exercises, usually 3 sets of as many reps as I can, holding as long as possible on the failure rep. Saturday I mix it up by going to a gym and doing weight training. Sunday I don't do anything except recently I'll do hikes and swimming because it's the summer. I used to go to the gym every morning but replaced it with bodyweight exercises because of time reasons. They're much harder to do as well, took me weeks to be able to do proper pull ups and hanging leg raises.

You can do this by buying dip bars for dips and rows, and building or buying any tall freestanding bar for everything else. If I lived near a public pool opened early in the morning I would swim instead of using the bike.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not a daily thing. I do the "Rite of Passage" workout from the book "Enter the Kettlebell". Lots 1 arm military presses, cleans, and pullups.

It uses a rep scheme called "ladders". Ladders allow you to sneak in a high number of reps overall, even using heavy weights. Plenty of rest between sets. On the heavy day you end up doing 75 clean/press with heavy weight per arm. And 75 pullups. I never realized there was so many reps until i actually added it all up.

</comment><comment><USER5> I do [https://stronglifts.com/5x5/](https://stronglifts.com/5x5/) but I do 75% of weight of my max so I can train everyday. I mix in running or rowing to finish off the workout.

<comment><USER6> upvotes for stronglifts!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I train every other day. Wake up early in the morning and have a fasted walk to the gym (~30 minutes) during which I may or not drink a black coffee. During training I have a peptopro shake with some easily digested carbs and creatine.

My routine is a modified DoggCrapp where I perform myo-reps after the three heavy sets. I've found it's a nice way to add volume without taxing the nervous system. The volume is needed so I can eat more tasty carbs.

I avoid cardio and simply make use of long walks to keep my <10% bodyfat in check.

My diet is high carb, moderate protein and fat.

</comment><comment><USER8> Every morning, I meditate for 20 mins. Then for Mon-Wed-Fri, I run to the gym (about 2kms) and back for a 30 minute workout. For Tues-Thurs, I run 4kms.

On at least one weekend day, I get up early and hit the skatepark for a skate before all the kids and better skaters get there.

On the 3 weekdays I work in an office, I bike in (5kms)...

The one thing I've come to rely on, aside from the physical benefits is that all the early mornings give me a running start to tackle the day ahead, whether it's work or the kids routine...

</comment><comment><USER9> 4/days a week, 531 Boring But Big. This week I start adding in Couch25k. And one or two days a week, I like to do kettlebell swings or barbell complexes for some conditioning work.

Unfortunately, I waited until I was obese to start any of this, so I'm not seeing the physical effects as far I would like. However, I'm down about 10 pounds for the year. While not great, it's better than the trend up in the last few years.

<comment><USER10> Seems like a lot of effort without much improvement. Have you considered counting calories in addition to the work you are doing?

<comment><USER9> I have. It's always the hardest part, and I understand it's what I need to work on. Also, I wasn't focusing much on diet early, because I was just establishing the fitness habit. Now I'm turning more towards the diet side.

<comment><USER11> I was also a bit disappointed how getting active (running 15km per week) did not result in losing any weight at all.

Then I've started calorie counting after readin this post 5 weeks ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17391567](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17391567)

I've lost 4.5kg since then (I guess that is about 10 pounds?).

I wasn't really overweight before, but it's the first time my girlfriend said I look good in years :)

It's also a good motivator to stay active: When I eat too much one day, I can go run for an hour to make up for it.

The only difficult part is estimating calories in restaurants -- who knows if that dressing contains one table spoon of olive oil or three? (Funny enough, around here only fast food restaurants bother to provide nutrition info on their website)

Since I prepare most meals myself, that isn't that much of an issue, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since I got a job I only train on monday & friday Taekwondo, before I trained 3-4 days per week since I was twelve. On the other days I go running in the evening. I recently bought a weight vest and started to use it when I go running or for bodyworkouts. On saturday I go out walking (~5-8km) in the city or woods and shot pictures. In the summer months usually sunday is "bike day".

</comment><comment><USER13> At bare minimum, 20 mins of cardio, immediately after waking up.

I have to make that the lowest of the lazy bar, and do it first thing in the morning. Otherwise the percentage chance of it not getting done for the day increases to at least 86.7%

First is best, that way I can at least revisit the idea of weightlifting later, and then still feel somewhat good about myself when I lay down to go to sleep at night, having not worked out.

</comment><comment><USER14> Weekdays: Cardio first thing in the morning, fasted, right after waking up -- I alternate between 2k swim and 5k run. In the evenings, alternate strength training (mostly bodyweight stuff with some dumbbell work) and rock climbing.

Weekends I usually take one day off and do some multi-hour activity on the other day. Hiking, snowshoeing, kayaking, that sort of thing.

</comment><comment><USER15> I walk 8-10km a day and swim 1km 3 times a week. In the winter I add in yoga or cycling and reduce the walking a bit cause it rains.

I don't do any gym weights atm, but I'm currently renovating a house, so I end up spending one day a week carting building material around.

</comment><comment><USER16> The most important part of my routine is calorie tracking everything I eat, and walking out of the office to get a healthy lunch. In terms of exercise, I try and fit in 3-4 runs (30-60 mins) a week, and one long bike ride at the weekend (2-3 hours).

</comment><comment><USER17> Morning walking for 20m + 30 pushups and body weight squats. if I feel like running I will run for whatever feels comfortable. but I skip pushups and squats that day.

after work, I hit the gym. I follow mostly PPL split.

calories 2000 to 2500.

</comment><comment><USER18> \- 2 days a week I do indoor bouldering during about 1.5 hours per session

\- 2 other days a week I do 30 min of bodyweight workout on rings : 5 min plank (front + sides) then dips/rows/push-ups/pull-ups

</comment><comment><USER19> I try to follow Ben Bergeron programming. Google it, his daily email is free. I used to do it 5 days a week, but am now down to 2. I really need to get it back to at least 4 days a week.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wake up, black coffee, and 1 hour of a push/pull/legs split, 6 days per week. 30 mins cycling on my stationary bike at home watching netflix, 3 days per week.

</comment><comment><USER21> I track calories for everything I eat. Moreover I do 25-30 minutes of jogging daily. When it rains I do 5 kilometers with my stationary bike instead.

</comment><comment><USER22> 40 mins biking for commuting to/from work.

Workout at the city gym about 4 times a week. Currently doing a PPL routine with 4 x 8-10 (sets x reps)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> \- Gym 3 days a week (High Intensity and weight)

\- Walk around 5kms/day</comment>


Does the Large Hadron Collider create its own bad luck? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html

<comment><USER2> Entertaining, but completely non-sensical. How does the universe know that the agency responsible for the creation of the abhorrent Higgs boson is the LHC. This is a huge philosophical question, of what "is" the LHC.

And even more goofy, how could it sabotage _plans_ for a collider. Surely there's no concrete path of causation for the universe to cause a collider project to be de-funded. That's just silly.

</comment><comment><USER3> If this was true we could do something much more interesting than shuffle cards and decide not to turn it on. We'd basically have an infinite improbability engine at our disposal. We could declare that unless bricks of gold spontaneously appear in front of us, we'll turn it on. If they do appear, we wait a day and repeat.

</comment><comment><USER4> _In the case of the Higgs and the collider, it is as if something is going back in time to keep the universe from being hit by a bus. Although just why the Higgs would be a catastrophe is not clear._

Media outlets are still doing this? Really? Don't you have some celebrity affair to cover or something instead?

</comment><comment><USER5> There is always the classic test to see if the large hadron collider has destroyed the world yet.

<http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/></comment>


Would you please stop forking my universe - <AUTHOR>

Like many other HNers, I like to dabble a little in physics.  For the last few months I have been thinking about the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics.  I think I have finally decided that I like the Many Worlds interpretation better - it fits so nicely with what we would expect to see if we are living in the Matrix.  Does anyone want to argue the case for the Copenhagen interpretation? <comment><USER2> The Copenhagen interpretation fits nicely into extremely late evaluation if you were building a universe simulation.

"What's the quantum state of particle 1235435432? Who cares, nobody's going to look. If they do look, we'll just resolve it at measuring time or when it interacts with something else at that level."

Many-Worlds seems nonsensical because... well, every particle interaction forks an entire new existence? There are still pieces of the question we are missing. We are stuck in rampant guessing mode because we don't have measurable experiments.</comment>


Twitter's 2000-Follow Limit Raises A Ruckus - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/12/twitters-2000-follow-limit-raises-a-ruckus-but-how-many-people-can-you-seriously-keep-track-of-anyway/ <comment><USER2> Is this really such a big deal?

I once tried following a couple hundred people, I think it was maybe 220ish? - I found it then became a chore (and was on the verge of becoming a major time sink) to sift through all the messages everyday to find anything of value.

Any sane person (realistically) is unable to follow 2000 active people, its just not rational to think so.

If it were such a big deal, then change things around - make it so that after a certain threshold, when you "follow" a user, you have to then click again to receive updates.

That way people can have their warm fuzzy feelings about having their follow reciprocated and it might help with fixing their scaling issues.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Internet's protocols aren't suited to doing broadcast. Doing broadcast correctly requires new protocols, just like doing computer networks correctly required a departure from the physical connection-oriented view of networks that arose from telephony.

Van Jacobson's Google Tech Talk:

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840>

</comment><comment><USER4> Actually there you have Twitter's monetization. Let free accounts follow 100 users and also let them have 100 followers. And then have different levels of premium followers for businesses who want to use tweets as a public relations tool. i.e. $20/mo bumps it up to 500, $40/mo bumps it up to 1500, $100/mo bumps it up to 5000 and $299/mo lets you have unlimited followers</comment>


Glimmer: a jQuery Interactive Design Tool - <AUTHOR> http://visitmix.com/Articles/Glimmer-a-jQuery-Interactive-Design-Tool <comment><USER2> Wow Frontpage with jQuery, I think that more harm is done than good when people create things without understanding how they work. But, I'm probably biased as I spent (and continue to spend) years of my life learning and devoting myself to professional development practices.

</comment><comment><USER3> This tool appears to be Microsoft only, FYI.

</comment><comment><USER4> This website crashes my browser hardcore</comment>


Trinity: PSP Emulator Escape - <AUTHOR> https://theofficialflow.github.io/2019/06/18/trinity.html <comment><USER2> I'm deep into the console preservation, restoration, and modification scene personally as an active contributor, and in talking to another friend in the community tonight around this article, it wouldn't surprise either of us if most if not all of the exploits from the link were happily held in community embargo until a safe distance after the date Sony officially discontinued its support for the Vita had passed. There's been a real flurry of "jailbreak" activity from the community since Sony decided to walk away from the Vita, despite some niche third-party manufacturers like Limited Run Games still supporting the system with new physical releases.

That said, while the Acekards and R4s made the Nintendo DS by far the most accessible vector for piracy and homebrew, exploits made the PSP ground zero for multi-system emulation fans. The PSP display was significantly better and the system, prior to the 3DS, was significantly more powerful.

We're about to see the Vita assume the PSP's place on that mantle, it looks like.

<comment><USER3> Are you sure about that? "Phone in a bluetooth gamepad" seems like a much larger install base with many other obvious advantages.

<comment><USER4> The issue with "Phone in a BT gamepad" is that it requires you to constantly take the phone in and out of said grip/gamepad. It never caught on because it's a terrible user experience.

<comment><USER5> And for me, I would like not to drain my phone battery on games, so a gaming handheld is the solution for me, but I guess i'm in the minority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I read stuff like this, I sometimes pause and think how wonderful it is I have access to so much information. Reading interesting pieces like this is one of my greatest hobbies; thank you to the author.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm from Europe and therefore missed out on an absolute ton of games from Japan through the 90s. Bought a PSP on launch for the sole purpose of playing Japanese Super Nintendo games in an environment more convenient than the family computer.

Think I bought about 10 PSP games in total (although the library was pretty damn good looking iirc) but its my favourite machine of all time purely because of how it granted me access to all these PS1 and SNES games that never game out in Europe.

Still use the PSP quite a bit for emulation (and Lumines), the original models have aged pretty beautifully imo.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is really incredible. Enough motivation and unaudited C code can get one really far on building console exploits.

That said, I wonder about a hypothetical world decades from now where new game technology uses safer languages like Rust instead of C primarily. The gain in stability would be offset by making finding exploits like this much harder, if not impossible. People might pine for the days where you could just download a custom C toolchain, compile a piece of homebrew and be able to run it on your own console somehow.

<comment><USER9> Regardless of how popular Rust becomes, I cannot see C going away or fading into complete obscurity within decades from now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Thanks for posting it here. I hope you enjoy the reading!

</comment><comment><USER11> Jesus, TheFloW is an actual, real life wizard.

</comment><comment><USER12> 'As the PS Vita™ is the successor of the PSP™, which was _the_ most popular handheld back then'

[citation needed]

I'm seeing 154.02 million Nintendo DS units vs. 80–82 million PSP's. AFAIK the DS was _much_ more popular 'back then'...

<comment><USER13> Might have been referring to it's popularity within the homebrew scene.

<comment><USER14> The DS was pretty popular for homebrew; the microSD card adapter cartridges were impressive feats of engineering which made it very easy to load custom code. I remember ebook and graphic novel readers, paint apps, Linux, emulators for a few simple systems like the SNES, a C SDK, the whole nine yards. It wasn't as fast as the PSP, but there were still some pretty amazing projects, like this homage to Portal:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160203155724/http://smealum.ne...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160203155724/http://smealum.net/ASDS/)

Sad to see that link rot is starting to set in with many of the projects that I mentioned above. For example, the SNES emulator:

[http://snemul.com/ds/](http://snemul.com/ds/)

<comment><USER15> That portal homebrew sounds very interesting but my memory of the time remembers that DS homebrew was used almost exclusively for piracy but from what I have heard PSP homebrew was used a lot for stuff like playing music and running actual custom tools.

<comment><USER16> I used my PSP to read lecture slides on the way to uni. :)

<comment><USER17> My PSP is still the best device I have for running emulators on a portable. The physical controls beat anything else I've tried - without being nearly as bulky as strapping your phone into an Xbox controller.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The new copyright bill has been tabled in Canada - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080612.wgtcopyright0612/BNStory/Technology/ previous bills have not passed <comment><AUTHOR> Previous attempts have not passed through parliament.</comment>


Google Glass Teardown - <AUTHOR> http://www.techinsights.com/teardown.com/google-glass/

<comment><USER2> Of note, Google denies the report's accuracy, albeit without specifying any details

[http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/30/google-glass-parts- es...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/30/google-glass-parts-estimated-to- cost-less-than-80/)</comment>


Excess Deaths Associated with Covid-19 (CDC Website) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm <comment><USER2> It's sad to see what an effective early response could have prevented. Especially bitter to know that that response didn't come because society first had to see the effects to accept the necessity.

Observing the situation in Europe during February, I had the fatalist view that "even if governments understand what's coming, they first need enough cases to avoid being perceived as overreacting."</comment>


Ask HN: Should tech giants create their own free universities? - <AUTHOR> To hoover up vast numbers of people and train them as programmers, project mangers etc (not testers, the world is full of testers).<p>If the universities were not just free, but had lots of other benefits to make them appealing.... and they taught all the development and restored fields to qualify them to work at FB, GOOG ASPL, MSFT, whichever TGU (Tech Giant University) they attend. <comment><USER2> There is a huge value in on-the-job training, but that value comes from a direct alignment between the work and the learning.

Time delays in the University model (for one thing) make it hard to produce what is needed. For instance if you want to "learn deep learning", you could get a PhD, and maybe 9 years later you will be an expert, but 9 years is a very long time and the field may be tapped out and deep learning PhD's will be driving cabs.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Should tech giants create their own free universities?

No. Trade schools, yes, of course -- they (for-profit companies) are the only ones in a position to teach students how to work in the industry. But universities are different type of institution, they should be conducting research, teaching topics more theoretical/abstract/fundamental for the field, and should not depend on whims of industrial giants.

</comment><comment><USER4> There is a lot of infrastructural work behind a university. Why would a tech giant deviate some of its capital to train people in a specific field within the corporation? Besides having to pay for the student to attend and graduate, they would also have to pay them a competitive salary afterwards ? What specifically is the advantage point ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Cause the can't get enough software engineers.</comment></comment>


Symantec Managed Partner Infrastructure - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yd079EsKQ-QawTvWgjIfrCV6d0NNlwoS1ftB0MaJkBc/edit <comment><AUTHOR> Linked from the final proposal on "Intent to Deprecate and Remove: Trust in existing Symantec-issued Certificates" [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink- dev/eUA...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink- dev/eUAKwjihhBs/El1mH8S6AwAJ)</comment>


Truecaller meets its match in India: MobileNumberTracker.com lets you find more - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilenumbertracker.com <comment><USER2> is this only for India?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes.</comment></comment>


Guy Builds A Star Trek Phaser - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuuL_Tel79g <comment><USER2> Only looked cool because room was filled with smoke. But, it did look cool!</comment>


Subway-style maps of roads of the Roman Empire - <AUTHOR> https://sashamaps.net/docs/maps/roman-roads-index/ <comment><USER2> Fun fact about Roman roads: The Romans would build roads as straight as physically possible. Unlike the modern day, where we will wrap a road around the landscape to keep it relatively level, the Romans would direct their roads straight up and down hills to keep them as short as possible.

Also, on the subject of maps of Rome that look like subway maps, the Peutingeriana [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana) is supposedly based on a Roman original and definitely feels like a subway map, prioritizing the connections between cities rather than their correct spatial distribution.

<comment><USER3> This makes a lot of sense actually, motorized vehicles have a lot more trouble with slopes than people (and pack animals) do.

Also, in Roman times road construction had to be done entirely by hand and out of stone. Modern "pouring" of roads with asphalt or concrete was not yet a thing back then, so it makes sense to try and limit the hard work of construction as much as possible.

<comment><USER2> Yeah they needed a lot of big paving stones which I'm guessing were a relatively scarce resource,

Not to mention that road building was a military practice done by the army to facility the moving of large armies. Travel time took priority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Among the very most famous Roman roads is the Via Aemilia (now Via Emilia), a straight-as-an-arrow road running diagonally along the edge of the mountains in Northern Italy, and connecting a string of now-famous towns: Rimini, Cesena, Forli, Imola, Bologna, Modena, Reggio Emilia, Parma, Fidenza, Piacenza. You can still bike the whole road: it's SS 9.

The "Italy" subway style map completely butchered it. For half of it, they put all the towns on an east-west line, then bent the remainder north to Piacenza. What the...? This isn't some little Roman Road: it's one of probably the top three in the world. And it's a _straight line_ visible from space.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly what New Yorkers told Massimo Vignelli in the 70s when he redesigned the subway map for easier readability, at the expense of actually representing reality.

[https://youtu.be/OdDsV19DBCU](https://youtu.be/OdDsV19DBCU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I get the sense that there's quite a bit of humor embedded in these works. I don't understand most of the references, but there's one that I got right away.

Click the map of Italy. Roughly in the lower-right-center, there's what looks like a gray volcano. Zoom in and read the caption:

        Vesuvius

And just south of it:

        Pompeii (clausa)
        Pompeii (closed)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_79_AD)

</comment><comment><USER7> Not an authority in Roman history but looking at the Iberian map, the Roman city of Conimbriga is not modern day Coimbra, it was around 15km away from it. It's actually Aeminium [0]

This makes me a bit suspicious of the overall quality of the maps.

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

<comment><USER8> I think it's the certain style and design liberties subway style maps use. For comparison, look at the general sizing or shape of Central Park in NYC subway maps [0].

[0] [https://new.mta.info/map/5256](https://new.mta.info/map/5256)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some time ago I visited some Italian cities from Germany by train. I could have done that tour with little changes 2000 years earlier. Of course I would have to get over the Limes first to enter the civilized parts of Germany in Mogontiacum. Augusta Raurica is not far off present day Basel where I spent a day. The Swiss train through the Brenner base tunnel was certainly preferable to a mule trek across dangerous mountain passes. But al the cities were there, Mediolanum, Florentia, and Roma.

</comment><comment><USER10> What an impressive set of maps, and such work involved! Really impressive.

I was amused by the "future roads" dashed lines -- thinking about how even for an empire like that, there were unfinished things after 500-600 years.

Also, how the ends of the subway lines in Scotland, etc. were really the end of the world for them. You wouldn't want to be posted there compared to the warm sunny home of the Mediterranean.

<comment><USER11> By the time they were post guy in Scotland, those guys would have been Gauls or Brittons, with a general who had maybe been to Italy once. You may enjoy SPQR by Mary Beard if this is your sort of thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm about to be in Rome. If anyone has tips on under-rated things to see and do then I would appreciate hearing about it. I'm already interested in that road you can see from space.

<comment><USER13> Not sure if it qualifies as under-rated, but there is a night tour of the Roman forums with what's basically a documentary about roman life projected on the ruins, highlighting details and providing context. I found it great (also because it's been produced- and narrated, in the Italian version- by Piero Angela, a beloved science documentarist that has interested in science entire generations of Italians, sort of an Italian David Attenborough). I was there with a friend who's a native English speaker and she enjoyed it a lot as well.

[http://www.viaggioneifori.it/en/](http://www.viaggioneifori.it/en/)

<comment><USER12> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is excellent - really conveys the scope, power and engineering prowess of Rome.

OT: For anybody interested, the original subway map (Harry Beck's for the London Underground) was constructed in his spare time; it was a massive hit with the public and his name is now printed with the map.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map#Beck's_maps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map#Beck's_maps)

</comment><comment><USER15> Here is another amusing maps source:

[https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/](https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/)

</comment><comment><USER16> This might be ignorance on my part, but why is Vienna to the west of Geneva? Assuming that "Genava" along via Helvetica is modern day Geneva.

<comment><USER17> Not the Vienna you're thinking of:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/38200+Vienne,+firstname.lastname@example.com...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/38200+Vienne,+email@example.com,4.8453116,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x47f4ea516ae88797:0x408ab2ae4bb21f0!2sLyon,+France!3b1!8m2!3d45.764043!4d4.835659!3m4!1s0x47f4df0824f5f985:0xc4e1bb60b45a03c3!8m2!3d45.5255925!4d4.8744965)

(shout out to Aventicum!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> To get a general idea of the engineering and moral progress mankind has made from the first century to the twentieth, compare:

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limeswachturm_Wp_3/26](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limeswachturm_Wp_3/26)

with

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

<comment><USER18> I don't really know what you're getting at. Care to explain? But maybe it's because I don't know German?

<comment><USER17> Just look at the pictures: I thought the tower-style fortification has stayed recognisably the same from the mid-first century to the mid-twentieth century.

The major differences: scale (13m vs. 54m), materials (wood vs. concrete), and intended use (terrestrial vs. aerial defence)

(that the need for fortification has remained current measures our moral progress over these thousands of years X-P)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> An aside: I'm going to bet that this website was made with Hugo and the Hugo book template, which is pretty easy to use IMO.

[https://themes.gohugo.io/hugo-book/](https://themes.gohugo.io/hugo-book/)</comment>


Low Level Bit Hacks You Must Know - <AUTHOR> http://www.catonmat.net/blog/low-level-bit-hacks-you-absolutely-must-know <comment><USER2> Here is a fun challenge for language snobs: implement bit-streams for your favorite language. Here is a simple signature:

      bitvec read_nbits (unsigned int count, bitstream input);

      bool write_nbits (unsigned int count,bitvec bits,
                       bitstream output);

Then add a multirecord I/O. That is, read a record of bitvecs, each N bits wide, where the length is not given but encoded in the bitstream in this manner: read a bitvec record of N bits, if the high-bit is set (take it in whatever endian you like), read another record and repeat, if the high bit is not set, return whatever you read thus far.

Then add the ability to return the bitvec records as single integers (bignums even) both signed and unsigned, taking them in this manner. If the bitvecs are unsigned, each record contributes its 7 least significant bits, and the high bit is dropped. Taking the bit on either end of the first record as the most signficant, iterate over the rest and shift and OR according to your endian needs to construct an integer from the sum of all the bits.

When I first did this exercise, I was very close to gouging my own eye-balls out, but after I did it, I started to think of bits as something very natural, and not to be feared.

<comment><USER3>
      let nthbit (bitContainer:'T) nth : bool = (bitContainer &&& ((1 :> 'T) <<<nth))

      let bitstream (bitContainerSeq:seq<'T>) : seq<bool> =
       let sz = sizeof<'T>
       bitContainerSeq
       |> Seq.map (fun b -> [0..sz]
                            |> nthbit b
                            |> Seq.ofArray )
       |> Seq.concat

I think that should do it unfortunatley I'm away from an F# compiler

<comment><USER2> This looks magical :-)

Are you sure you're decoding bits from an octet stream (normal 8-bit bytes) and not using logical booleans? I ask this because I don't see any bit- manipulation operators, except maybe for "1 :> 'T" which looks like the SML module type casting, but I could be wrong.

<comment><USER3> Yes very sure. nthbit will extract the nth bit from an integer type. The bitwise logic is the &&& and <<< in F# you use triples for bitwise. But there is a bug in there, i forgot to times sz by 8 <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/dd469495.aspx>

bitstream turns a sequence of integer types into a sequence of bits.

So if you wanted to turn a stream into bits you'd do something like the following.

      new System.IO.FileStream('foo.txt')
      |> Seq.unfold (fun s -> (s , match s.read with
                                   | -1 -> None
                                   | x -> Some(x)))
      |> bitstream

I just realized that the bitstream function is unnecessary and you could instead write

      let bits (bitContainer:'T) : seq<bool> =
         [0..(sizeof<'T>*8)]
         |> Seq.ofArray
         |> Seq.map (fun nth -> (bitContainer &&& ((1 :> 'T) <<<nth))

And change the above code to:

      new System.IO.FileStream('foo.txt')
      |> Seq.unfold (fun s -> (s , match s.read with
                                   | -1 -> None
                                   | x -> Some(x)))
      |> Seq.map bits
      |> Seq.concat

<comment><USER3> Just for fun here's the reverse to turn a sequence of booleans into a sequence of integer types (byte,int,long,etc). Note that the length of sequence s must be a multiple of sizeof<'T> times 8

      let bitsToBitContainer (s:seq<bool>) : seq<'T> =
        let sz = sizeof<'T>*8
        s
        |> Seq.scan (fun (i,n) x -> (i++,(n<<<1)|||(x&&&1)) (0,0)
        |> Seq.filter (fun (i,n) -> i = sz)
        |> Seq.map (fun (i,n) -> n)

<comment><USER2> I am liking this F# thing. Thanks! :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As much as I love bit manipulation, I have to say that most (not all) of them don't provide any real performance gain for C/C++ code (only some geeky satisfaction of writing difficult to interpret code!).. e.g. with any decent compiler...

* if ((x & 1) == 0) performs same as, if ((x % 2) == 0)

* if (x & (1<<n)) same as, if (x% (pow(2,n)))

so on.. on the other hand, i find bit operations really handy when the variables in question are to be treated as separate bits than normal base-10..

<comment><USER5> Agreed regarding modulo, but `pow' returns a floating-point number.

<comment><USER4> sorry, what i meant there wasn't literally pow function per se, but a function which does the job..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's a much more comprehensive collection of bit hacks:

<http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html>

<comment><USER7> Ha. Next time someone asks how to swap two values at an interview question (I think this is pretty common):

      #define SWAP(a, b) (((a) ^= (b)), ((b) ^= (a)), ((a) ^= (b)))

<comment><USER8> Is it pretty common? As someone who does a fair number of software engineer interviews, that's a trick question. The real answer to "swap two vars with no temps" is:

1\. Don't be clever in our code base. Use a temp variable. 2\. There's various dumb tricks with XOR, and possibly add/subtract if overflows don't break. 3\. A sequence of several instructions where each of them requires the result of the previous one may not execute particularly fast on modern processors. Instruction/cycle counts -- like 3 -- are great when there's no pipeline and no cache, but otherwise pretty much useless. 4\. The things you're swapping might be local variables, and when the compiler has -O <anything> specified, local variables start getting weird, and "swap" can sometimes be done in _zero_ instructions, namely by the compiler noting that they have now been swapped and using the other one for the rest of the basic block. (or further dominated basic blocks for that matter) 5\. If the things you're swapping are in main memory, or even if it's not in L1, you're going to be incurring a cost much greater than the temporary use of a register. (and, if you don't know where they are and it might be main memory, this might dominate the average runtime)

The answer is _definitely_ not "three xors".

<comment><USER9> Embedded and firmware engineering questions expect this as an answer. Anyone following your advice will not be taken seriously. This is true regardless of whether you're correct factually. Readers of this thread deserve to know that.

<comment><USER10> 3 is actually a quite valid point for embedded. Any swap actually will be expensive when it comes to keeping cache lines clean. The correct answer in that case is just to not swap the variables, and instead swap their uses later on:

        int x, y;
        ...
        SWAP(x, y);
        foo(x, y);

becomes

        int x, y;
        ...
        foo(y, x);

(naturally, this is why I still eagerly await the arrival of a C compiler that has macros with LISP power)

<comment><USER11> In that case, you can get the right behavior by just swapping the variables using a temporary variable. If the compiler is decent, it'll automatically swap their uses later on.

I don't know how every compiler works, but if you use Clang (or anything LLVM- based), it converts everything to Single Static Assignment (SSA) form:

        int x1 = 42, y1 = 666;
        ...
        int tmp = x1; x2 = y1; y2 = tmp;  // SWAP(x, y)
        foo(x2, y2);

In SSA form, the value of a variable does not change, so it ends up creating a bunch of "imaginary" variables to hold intermediate values. From there, it does optimizations, then figures out how best to allocate registers, and what needs to be stack-allocated.

<comment><USER10> Cool, thanks. I know far too little about compiler optimizations, it's always nice to hear about them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you're interested in reading about more of these, and how they work I'd highly suggest reading the book Hacker's Delight by Henry S. Warren[1]. I know that I've used more than a few of the tricks in my day-to-day work.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Delight-Henry-S- Warren/dp/0201...](http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Delight-Henry-S- Warren/dp/0201914654/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287586055&sr=1-1)

<comment><USER13> Indeed, a great book. It's also mentioned in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> And, Here's a draft of Bitwise Tricks and Techniques, by Knuth.

<http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/fasc1a.ps.gz>

</comment><comment><USER15> _Bit Hack #6. Turn off the rightmost 1-bit.

Now it finally gets more interesting!!! Bit hacks #1 - #5 were kind of boring to be honest._

Does anybody know a practical use case for that? I have personally never encountered a situation were I needed to manipulate the right most 1-bit.

Otherwise it's a nice introduction to bit hacking.

<comment><USER16> Let's say you use a bitmask for keeping track of free registers in a compiler. To "allocate" a register, you'll want to clear a bit, to indicate that the register is no longer free.

That's the context I learned this trick in. It's used in the Embarcadero (ex- Borland) compilers (Delphi, C++, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> These aren't _hacks_ really: they're just basic operations in binary arithmetic that anyone who has seriously coded C or assembly must have bumped into, probably quite early.

Other's have already mentioned but for real hacks in the unintuitive sense, check out Hacker's Delight and <http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html>.

</comment><comment><USER18> Is working on embedded systems really this fun? I might have to change careers...

<comment><USER19> It was 10-20 years ago. The funnest project I ever worked on was to implement a 17-function motor controller with 40-bit precision onto an MCU with 2K of RAM and 64 BYTES of RAM. That was in '93.

Today embedded systems generally run Linux. You get to write a bit of assembly language code in your bootloader, and then it's just bog standard Unix programming. It's even likely that you'll be doing most of your coding in a scripting language, although it's more likely to be Lua than Ruby...

<comment><USER20> There are still a lot of 8051s and MSP430s out there.

The fun thing about embedded is that since everything is done as a result of interrupts or clock signals it's all the joys of multitasking without a threading library.

I just got handed a project where the 'app' was just main() { while(1) {} } ! Everything happens as the result of functions that get magically called when certain bit patterns appear

<comment><USER2> Look into Esterel for some theoretical grounding. It will help you reason about reactive systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here are some more bit hack algorithms <http://www.aggregate.org/MAGIC/>

The intersection of tricks on all those sites is quite large but on every one of them there's something you haven't seen before.

By the way if you like to wrap your mind around such tricks you might also find some gems here: <http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/asmexample.html>

</comment><comment><USER22> Previous submission <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=681282>

</comment><comment><USER23> Great tutorial, but I wish he'd given some context for these. The even/odd is a well-known one, but propagation of rightmost 1-bit? I have no idea what that, or most of these, are used for.

</comment><comment><USER24> Also works in SQL Server: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms176122.aspx> Sweet!

</comment><comment><USER25> If you like this stuff, you'll love the book "Hacker's Delight" which is just full of these:

<http://www.hackersdelight.org/>

</comment><comment><USER26> oo~ number 7 is interesting</comment>


Ask HN: New employer asking me to sign a strange agreement - <AUTHOR> Have you ever been asked to sign a strange agreement that you did not consent to by an employer? I know non-competes are pretty far reaching in an unrealistic way but are pretty much a standard so we kind of give them a pass with the hopes that they won't be enforced.<p>That said, I was recently asked to sign an agreement that said my company would be able to use my photo, biographical info, or my likeness in any way to promote their products without my consent. Has anyone seen something like this? Were you able to push back against it? <comment><USER2> This isn't strange or abnormal in normal business, it is just newer for tech staff. I have seen this a lot in marketing and executive employment agreements. It is basically so companies don't get sued for showing pictures of you on their website or in their marketing info etc. Generally it is for two things, 1 to be able to use your image, and 2 to say you have already been compensated for any use of your likeness.

Honestly, I think you should be glad this company is being up front about it and not doing what most startups do which is use all that without ever asking your permission or telling you what they might use.

If later something changes for you personally, you can send a cease and desist letter to prevent them from using your likeness in the future. IANAL but you do have rights to control the usage of your likeness and bio for future use, you couldn't stop prior usages or force them to recall marketing brochures, but you could prevent them from using your likeness on future material (digital or print) if you sent the C&D.

</comment><comment><USER3> IANAL.

I _think_ that kind of thing is just like "we can post photos of the company picnic on our public-facing website to show what a great place this is to work, without getting sued by someone who is in the picture". It's probably in some best-practices guide that they're following.

For me, it's something I might find vaguely annoying, but something I wouldn't worry about. It's not like someone is going to choose _my_ face for a national advertising campaign.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya, I am guessing this is something they likely won't pursue to its fullest extent but indeed something annoying. Say for instance, the company is eventually taken over by a bad actor that now wants to put my face on some endorsement for a shady product. Then I won't be too happy about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Were you able to push back against it?

Not really. I tried once and got walked out of the building after sitting through an endless bunch of meetings where different rungs of the hierarchy making the "...but everyone does it" argument.

A better approach, I found latter in life is to be buddies with the right people. They want to stick your info all over, go talk to your Marketing/HR/PR buddy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking this would be a good approach too, both within the company and outside of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, clearly they are asking for your consent...

You haven't said what role this relates to. If you'll be attending conferences or somehow end up on company material then this agreement seems normal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Software engineer at an e-commerce company. Conference attendance is likely at some point but not even close to my primary role.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is your new job in California? I think CA has extra laws about using someone's likeness so my employment agreements here have all had language like that. The first time I saw it I thought it was odd too and drew a line through it.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is not unusual, only an unusual way of asking.

The usual way is just to drop you a message on Slack asking if they can use your photo on their pitch deck or website, or attach your resume on a government tender.

</comment><comment><USER8> _in any way to promote their products_

that sounds kind of sketchy unless you happen to be a supermodel, I would hope that they have customers or investors that are better suited to help promote their products

</comment><comment><USER9> A friend had to sign this, background is they want to show all employees on the about-us page on the website. I think you can push back and limit the use, e.g. to the website.</comment>


Why do we feel so alone when we're supposed to be more connected than ever? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/treatises-on-a-modern-world/the-friend-and-the-follower-1b16ab6bda78

<comment><USER2> starts with a good analysis and then become a infomercial for a startup that do Facebook without the follow option (which is easily added by a external archive so they are pointless)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, we really tried for it not to sound like an infomercial, while at the same time showing an example of how to move before friends and followers.

We are really nothing like Facebook, and in many ways, the opposite. Id be happy to give you the demo some time. email@example.com or 415-390-6808</comment></comment>


Diversity Makes Projects More Successful - <AUTHOR> https://www.linux.com/news/learn/chapter/open-source-management/2017/3/diverse-projects-more-successful <comment><USER2> It seems that this article quotes a boatload of sources which could be presented as blatant examples of the very old and often forgotten motto "correlation does not imply causation".

Taken from the article:

> A study from McKinsey Research, for example, showed that across industry, > gender diversity on a leadership team brough 15 percent higher financial > returns than those without; those with ethnic diversity brought 35 percent > higher returns.

Does anyone actually believe that an all-male, all white investment company would suddenly and magically see their returns increase by 35% if they added token employees to the team?

Perhaps a more reasonable -- and realistic -- explanation would be that success-driven companies hire based on results, and results aren't gender or even race-specific.

</comment><comment><USER3> .. of course it does.

Doubleplusgood!</comment>


EU study recommends OpenBSD - <AUTHOR> http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20150427093546 <comment><USER3> Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and use OpenBSD don't contribute back. Good to see the EU at least acknowledging that its something that they should explore. They probably use it and its features more than they realise.

I suspect there is a strong political motive as well behind being "technologically independent" after the NSA mass surveillance revelations.

I like the sound of an EU BSD fork - hopefully they fund one. We've always been lacking in the Operating Systems dev department over here in Europe. Linux is our main contribution but we can do more.

<comment><USER4> > Theo De Raadt always complained that many of the institutions that run and > use OpenBSD don't contribute back.

Sounds like he needs a different license then.

<comment><USER5> I don't think _any_ of the free/open licenses require users to contribute to the parent project. I don't think any even require that people distributing modified versions, send those modifications back upstream.

<comment><USER6> The GPL kinda-sorta does. I guess it depends on your definition of "contribute back." People that derive from GPL source have to release those changes to the public, which could just be a zip archive on their web-site rather than a git pull request.

I guess what I mean is, the company can try to be as unhelpful as possible (e.g. strip comments, place all code into a giant .cpp file, etc) but it does technically have to publish source code regardless.

<comment><USER7> The GPL requires you to distribute source code in addition to binaries. If you don't distribute binaries (i.e. if you're running the code on your server farm only), then you don't have to distribute anything.

<comment><USER8> That is why some choose to license their work under AGPL.

<comment><USER7> That still only goes so far, though. If you're building a product on top of a database that's licensed with the AGPL, like Mongo, you have to distribute those changes.* If you build your Intranet site on Mongo, though, you don't need to distribute those changes in a way that gets back to upstream.

* I think. And I don't know if this has withstood the sort of court scrutiny the GPL has.

<comment><USER9> For the intranet site, I think you'd still need to make the source code available to users, who could then make the source publicly available.

IANAL, though, so I don't know if corporate policy forbidding this would be legal under the terms of the AGPL.

<comment><USER10> >I don't know if corporate policy forbidding this would be legal under the terms of the AGPL

Section 10 of both the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 prevent the imposition of "further restrictions" on the subject of the license.

<comment><USER9> I'm aware. What's not clear is whether applies to the individual components of an organization (i.e. its employees) or just the organization as a whole. I want to think the answer is that intra-organizational distribution still counts as distribution (and therefore cannot be restricted), but usually it's considered acceptable to use a modified version of (A)GPL'd software internally (i.e. not used outside the organization) without it counting as "distribution", so things are kind of fuzzy without explicit terms in that regard.

Such are the side-effects of treating organizations as singular entities :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Link to Part 1 of the study (wherein the recommendation lies):

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/52740...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/527409/EPRS_STU\(2015\)527409_REV1_EN.pdf)

Part 2 of the study recommends government funding of Open Source Projects:

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/52741...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/527410/EPRS_STU\(2015\)527410_REV1_EN.pdf)

Potential and actual conflicts of interest between governments and citizens in regard to privacy are not addressed.

<comment> k-mcgrady They don't address conflicts of interest but it seems like they're fine with privacy:

"[...] the use of open source computer operating systems and applications reduces the risk of privacy intrusion by mass surveillance.

They seem to be touting that as a benefit, not a drawback.

<comment><USER11> When the same governments are funding signals intelligence gathering with one hand and open source software development with the other, there is potential conflict of interest, if not actual conflict.

The NSA's role in weakening open source encryption standards was the result of the internal logic by which all intelligence organs typically operate irrespective of sponsoring state. The differences between the politics of some EU states and the politics of the US or Russia or the UK don't change that internal logic of intelligence organs. Their job remains to maintain data collection capability.

<comment> k-mcgrady And with OSS we can see when the create back doors or modify the code. We can see what the modifications do. And if they are doing anything wrong we can revert the changes and publicise it. Following on from your thinking, what is their angle here? On the surface it seems more difficult to exploit OSS but is there something they can do with it that users won't know about and is easier to exploit?

<comment><USER11> Subtle security leaks are not in the center of the all-bugs-are-shallow theory. Cryptographically insecure communications don't cause code to throw exceptions or systems to crash. The effects are social. Unless Eve tells Alice or Bob, neither will know she's read their communications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Support OpenBSD, but NEVER fork it..

[http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/](http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/)

[http://www.openbsd.org/want.html](http://www.openbsd.org/want.html)

[http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html](http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html)

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

</comment><comment><USER13>
         Nice to see recognition from the trenches of bureaucracy.

It's really nice that they can write such statement.

Kudos to the OpenBSD team!

</comment><comment><USER14> I like OpenBSD. I like the spirit of the developers, which don't compromise on security. I like the simplicity of the OS, very good documented and very robust. They are prepared to break a ton of software to advance the state of security/correct code.

I would like to have OpenBSD on all my machines, but unfortunately their license don't have the "infectious" effect of GPL. From my limited understanding, their license[0] is not a philosophical license like GPL. Linux popularity spread because of the distributed development style(everyone developed in their own tree, Linus decided if it had enough value to get in his tree) and GPL.

Even if you don't care on the philosophy of GPL, you can't deny that it helped make a lot of vendors to publish(even if half-hearted) their code which eventually after some cleanup(3rd party or themselves) got into the Linus tree.

If OpenBSD would be GPL licensed, I could see a BSD which would be have all the bleeding edge features, but Theo's tree was separate, conservative on features but not lacking on drivers. Men can only dream.

I realize that FreeBSD is the bleeding edge of BSD land and I'm not trying to start a license flamewar, but a lot of companies, i.e. graphics, wireless cards, laptop manufactures don't have (good) working drivers for BSD land, at least not published code which goes back to the community.

[0] - [http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi- bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/lice...](http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi- bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD)

<comment><USER9> While it's true that the GPL and the distributed nature of Linux development helped GNU/Linux proliferate, that isn't the reason why the BSDs didn't. In reality, they were encumbered by legal problems due to being derivative works of AT&T's Unix; the ensuing legal war of attrition caused a lot of folks to be unsure of whether or not they could legally use any of the BSDs without having to pony up for Unix licenses.

As a result, Linux was created (Linus Torvalds has said that if Hurd existed or if the BSD legality issues were resolved, he wouldn't have felt the need to develop the Linux kernel), and folks jumped onto that as the preferred free Unix due to it being unencumbered by the massive legal warfare taking place in BSD Land (of course, SCO would eventually bring the battle to the GNU/Linux world, but by that point, Linux was already well-entrenched).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For those that know more about OpenBSD than the EU (and I salute you for it), the EU parliament is a fairly powerless institution. Eurocrats show it little respect; one described it as "just one big fucking NGO".

Update after reading it: this isn't even an official parliament document or recommendation. It's something by the parliament's research service.

<comment><USER16> Politicians in EU and US call various institutions a "NGO" when they disagree with it and want to ridicule it to intentionally reduce its public reputation.

EP is a high reputation organization and has force within the EU structure. Calling an EPRS study "something by the parliament's research service" is not only redundant (EPRS = European Parliament Research Service) but also short- sighted (do you do the same thing to the deliverables by your R&D department?).

So, this is an EP study that you can cite in order to support your arguments for switching to free software in your government / school / workplace / home / hobby group.

<comment><USER15> I wasn't dismissing the study's quality, just saying that this is not necessarily going to lead to any change in policy (e.g. all EU computers mandated to run OpenBSD).

<comment><USER16> > all EU computers mandated to run OpenBSD

That kind of social change would require a change in the econo-political system.

<comment><USER15> I think mandating all EU computers to run _anything_ would be a very bad idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The EU also funds Minix 3 development, though that is more about reliability than security.

<comment><USER18> The thing about security is that it touches _everything_.

Ease of use? If something's hard to use, it's easy to confuse people into doing insecure things. Security issue.

Unreliable? Security depends on predictable behavior, and failure modes are often unpredictable. Security issue.

Proprietary protocol? Even if it wasn't intentionally backdoored, you don't know its real attack surface, because you don't know all of the verbs it contains. Verbs imply actions, actions imply changes of state, changes of state imply the Dark Side... uh, security concerns. Security issue.

Performance? Even aside from timing attacks and simple DoSing, things often behave oddly when pushed to a limit, especially if that limit involves otherwise-hidden race conditions. Security issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The study also recommends Qubes and Tails.

</comment><comment><USER20> I love openBSD, it's implementation of certain things is slower (like networking), but it's so clean and well implemented.

even if it doesnt' get to play with all the toys (like ZFS) it's what I'd love to default to for application servers/bastion server/firewalls etc;

my only qualm with it currently is it's reliance of X11 for ports to work- I don't like install X11 libs on my servers wherever I can avoid it. :\

<comment><USER21> > my only qualm with it currently is it's reliance of X11 for ports to work- I > don't like install X11 libs on my servers wherever I can avoid it. :\

Can you give a reference to this? I'm not doubting you, as I always install x11 anyway, I just didn't know this was still the case. I remember an issue with a lib in xbase.tgz a few years back that was required by lots of ports, but I thought they moved it to base.tgz.

Thanks!

<comment><USER20> [http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.ports/54692](http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.ports/54692)

[http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#NoFun](http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#NoFun) (at the bottom of this section)

<comment><USER21> Good call. I was thinking packages in my head despite you specifically referring to ports. Thanks for following up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > "It is recommended that users install ..." OpenBSD?

The EU isn't serious if that's what they mean. It's not really an option for end users. My impression is that even technical users who are new to *nix should start with something more accessible.

Does the OpenBSD community even want to deal with a flood of nubes?

</comment><comment><USER23> Didn't everyone recommend Linux and Mac OS back when vulnerabilities on these systems just hadn't been discovered (or possibly written) yet?

Make OpenBSD popular, add a ton of devs, and attack value, and I'm pretty sure these problems will repeat themselves.

I think the second study, which briefly names OpenBSD, does a good job of pointing out that technological changes alone are insufficient.

<comment><USER18> Yes, and a Brinks armored truck is just as vulnerable to carjackings as a Ford Pinto, we just don't know about the vulnerability because nobody drives them.

People _were_ saying the same things about Linux. In the late 1990s and early 2000s. By which time Linux had _already_ become the de-facto go-to OS for web servers around the world. It was, in short, already a high-value target, and yet the apocalypse didn't occur.

<comment><USER23> Of course that's true. I'm just not convinced that OpenBSD : Linux :: Armored truck : Pinto.

In fact, the point of a good portion of the second study [1], p.17-25 is pointing out the flaws that have occurred in the Linux operating system and other existing technologies.

[1][http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/52740...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/527409/EPRS_STU\(2015\)527409_REV1_EN.pdf)

<comment><USER18> I never claimed Linux was a Pinto. My point is, some things are just built well, and even if they're not used very often we can expect a certain level of quality, as opposed to saying that the only reason we don't see them stolen is because so few people drive them. Especially if they're used all the damn time, just not in places people see a lot.

So some bugs will be found in OpenBSD. That's a given. However, it isn't like OpenBSD is _never_ used, or that the people who made it are _bad_ programmers.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, I agree 100% :-)

I guess what I'm saying is that it would make more sense to me if OpenBSD and Linux were both on the list. As you also mentioned, flaws existing in programs is inevitable, so unless the defect rate, normalized for usage, is significantly higher in one case, it's not good evidence for the quality or security of one over another.

<comment><USER9> In OpenBSD's case, the defect rate's pretty low, even when normalized for usage. It's had, what, 2 significant security bugs (that actually compromised the security of the base installation) over the last 2 decades or so? Pretty damn good if I may say so myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "[...] the use of open source computer operating systems and applications reduces the risk of privacy intrusion by mass surveillance. Open source software is not error free, or less prone to errors than proprietary software, the experts write. But proprietary software does not allow constant inspection and scrutiny by a large community of experts."

That worked great for OpenSSL didn't it? ;)

<comment><USER25> Microsoft has had 2 Heartbleed-level vulnerabilities in its Windows code so far, that were not just 2-3 years old but 10+ years old, leaving systems vulnerable to them for much longer.

The "advantage" of proprietary code here was that Microsoft got to downplay them (surprise surprise, no scary logo made by Microsoft for them!), and that's how proprietary code owners deal with security issues in general - <USER2> try to hide that they exist to keep the illusion that the software is (more) secure.

<comment><USER26> This is the second time today you've spread innuendo about how software security teams at big companies handle vulnerabilities, and the second time you've managed to casually insult teams that include some of the best software security people in the entire industry.

Here's the first:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9445436](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9445436)

These are egregiously bad arguments you're making, involving people who you don't know but that, from my experience reading so many of your comments, I believe are operating many levels above your own comfort level with actual software security.

The trouble is, like me, you comment on HN all the time, and so, like me, you get a huge name recognition boost for these comments you make. People reasonably believe that you know what you're talking about when you "explain" to them how Apple and Microsoft handle vulnerabilities. But you don't, and so these misleading comments prey on their lack of information.

<comment><USER27> The above comment isn't attacking "teams with great software security people" but the fact that in proprietary software people can and do downplay vulnerabilities (not a very controversial statement).

I've noticed tptacek over the past few years that your comments have shifted from great general security advice to more defending "the security profession". Please consider this shift and whether it is helpful.

<comment><USER28> Is your assessment that "in proprietary software people can and do downplay vulnerabilities" based on looking at HN/news stories, or based on directly interacting with security teams at those companies?

In my experience, the worst security offenders are either small businesses or big businesses whose core competency is not in tech. My friend managed to download 50,000 passwords from GreatestJournal.com because they left their MySQL server exposed to the Internet, with no password, and the open-source LiveJournal code stored passwords in plain text in the DB. He reported the vulnerability to them, and their response was to put a password on the MySQL server (and take it off the Internet a few days later), write a blog post saying "You may want to change your passwords if you reuse your GJ.com password on other sites", and then take down that blog post a couple days later.

By contrast, when I worked at Google, a security bug was a drop-everything P0 bug. I recall grabbing dinner at In'n'Out at 11:00 PM because a potential data leak was discovered at 6:00 and the culture is such that when a potential security bug is discovered, you drop what you're doing, assess the impact, fix it, and don't do anything else until you've done that. And I didn't work on a security team, just an infrastructure one responsible for google.com.

<comment><USER29> Google is the exception. Most major closed source vendors, even those known for their security, hide vulns that were not externally reported.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


USB Shield. To ground or not to ground? - <AUTHOR> https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/389972/usb-shield-to-ground-or-not-to-ground <comment><USER2> ground one end to a main earth but not the other..

this prevents circulating currents and interference signals..

however with devices such as mobile phones the phone frame should be connected to the ground of the usb so it is a floating earthed frame around the phone internals but does not link itself to earth.

The real problem comes about when connecting two or more devices that have a connection to the main earth...

A detailed understanding of the circuitry and operation is need to make a decision.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you deal with very old projects? - <AUTHOR> I've been doing this programming thing for ~16 years now. Every once in a while an old client will contact me asking for support for their decade old project.
In some cases, I don't even have the source code anymore. In most cases I'm happy if I've got some documentation about the build environment somewhere.
How does everyone else deal with this? Do you folks just have really good memories?
Thanks! <comment><USER3> From your client's perspective, 1) they know you do good work, and want to work with you again, 2) they think you know something about what they do and why they need the software, and 3) they think you know how the software works.

Take the first one as a compliment. It lowers their risk because it's hard to judge the skills of an otherwise unknown consultant.

You probably remember something about their business, even if it is hazy. They therefore aren't going to spend as much time having to get you up to speed on their specific needs. But do let them know that you'll still need some refresher.

And for the last case, you might go ahead and tell them that it's been so long that it's almost like working on someone else's code. (I've reviewed some of my own code a year later, in confusion about what I did, so this is common.) But it's not completely the case. People have idiomatic styles, and it's easier to get up to speed when you share similar idioms to others - <USER2> includes yourself.

So on their side, even if you don't remember the code, it's still a plus for them vs. getting someone new to come in completely cold. If you want, price it out as if you were coming in cold to an existing project. Just make sure to let them know that you are happy they like your work, and manage their expectations by reminding them that it's been a while, so it will still take a while to come up to speed.

And in the project, spend a couple of hours writing documentation, or even notes to yourself after the project it done, to make it easier for your future self to get more return work.</comment>


Programming languages and their relationship styles - <AUTHOR> http://maradydd.livejournal.com/293666.html

<comment><USER2> If you're going to make a comparative list of anything (programming languages, spoken languages, cultures, phones, whatever), for crying out loud limit it to things you know about! Padding the list out with things you've only read of in youtube comments does nobody any favors.

Based on the descriptions, I'd guess the author only has experience with C++, Python, Prolog, and possibly Java. That's a bit like someone who's only ever eaten frozen waffles, frozen pizza, and canned soup trying to write a comparative list of world cuisine.

<comment><USER3> I thought she did a good job with Lisp, Logo, and Haskell too. The Ada one left me completely perplexed -- as someone who wrote a fair bit on Ada in the 90s. What does this mean, "However, your tendency to wear the bondage and discipline gear all the time, as opposed to when your lover asks you to bring it out, frightens people off. You need to learn to stop calling people "worm" and "slave" in front of their mothers."?

<comment><USER4> I think it's a reference to Ada's reputation for being a "bondage and discipline language": <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BondageAndDisciplineLanguage>

<comment><USER5> I don't find it works well in this metaphor though, because the stereotype of Ada is that it's straight-laced and proper and thus popular with the Department of Defence. To me that doesn't mesh at all well with this picture of it bringing out the bondage gear to play "Mistress of Pain" of an evening.

<comment><USER4> I agree. I would have gone with a Catholic school headmistress or something like that. I was just explaining where the (overly literal) description came from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Logo: Lisp's adorable 7-year-old niece who likes to play with her toy > turtle. On casual conversation, she proves to be disturbingly worldly and > well-informed. You resolve not to let your kids play around Lisp's house. > Thinking about using Logo in any serious way makes you feel a bit dirty.

That was hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER7> Weird, sometimes the text is in second person ("Your older sister is the most popular...") other times third ("Python cares deeply about you..."). Not particularly entertaining anyway.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. Consistency would have helped a lot.

</comment></comment><comment> wh-uws I like this from the comments

"C#

Well, you're a big girl now -- all grown up and the heiress of a promising diamond mine. But you're also a politician bucking to be the first female president. You've promised to be everything all of your predecessors were and everything they could not be.

You look strangely familiar like an old girlfriend who has had a facelift and who has been in the witness relocation program. The wig and wheelchair don't fool those who can smell your scent and those of us who see that little switch at the back of the wheelchair that says "/unsafe" which is a euphemism for "release the whore" or "Unleashed! Now S _cks And F_ cks Everybody."

Once flipped, you'll be doing all of the nasty things we secretly like, but hired you not to do. But once we know you can be that whore, that's all you'll ever be... and at the dinner-party / political fund-raiser, your diamonds will still sparkle. Wipe your mouth, honey. "

</comment><comment><USER9> Ruby's talks about popular older sister... who is that supposed to be though?

<comment><USER10> I believe it could be smalltalk?

<comment><USER11> It's Perl. (This was written a while ago.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> S/N is too low.</comment>